Opening Statement



Monday, 28 October 2013

Ask Angelo! A New Q+A Blog Feature!

Angelo Ippolito is the local OECTA President for the Huron - Perth Elementary unit. His bio is included at the end of today's blog, listing his many credentials.* Angelo has volunteered to answer your questions about OECTA's Constitution, By-law, policies + procedures here on my independent teacher blog. I'm very glad to have him on board to help out, and hope this can become a regular feature. Your questions may be directed for Angelo to answer below this blog. His email address is also included below. Take it away Angelo:
 

Dear Readers, 
An open and constructive dialogue is what we need here on the many questions you are raising in the Comments section of David's blog. Let me give it a try. I will address questions and concerns from my personal view point. I will not resort to personal attacks and I will not break confidentiality. I will not undermine the integrity of individuals or duly constituted groups.  I will explain what I can and always be truthful.

Feel free to say whatever you want but keep it civil. I will be straightforward and answer appropriately. Rest assured that even if,


“I disagree with what you say, I will defend to my dying breath your right to say it." Voltaire. 
As a unit president, my local members must always come first. I will answer in a timely manner without taking away from my primary duty to the members.

The purpose of this blog Q+A feature is to move towards unity, foster trust, and cooperation. I understand that if I write anything that falls under the jurisdiction of the discipline board what could happen. It will not. A respectful and appropriate dialogue that seeks justice and truth using our right to freedom of expression will help us and this is always in the best interests of the Association. There is nothing wrong with tough questions. I will do my best. 

 
To get things started, we should consider the following:

 
Everything must be taken under the following context and definitions. 
 
From the OECTA Handbook 
1.1 - The Constitution is the fundamental principals of the Association.

Nothing can override the constitution except a 90 percent vote at the AGM.

2.1 - By-laws are a more detailed statement of the Association regulations deemed to be so necessary that they can only be changed by the annual general meeting.

By-laws supersede all other parts of the Handbook except the constitution. They must always be followed. Any motion or process not in accordance with the by-laws or the constitution is always out of order.

3.1 - Policies are statements reflecting the principals and objects of the Association constitution that guide the actions of officers, staff and members,
 
Policies are not debatable. They are not guides open to making them disregarded. They are there to guide our actions and not there for us to decide if they are actually policy. Our actions as well as staff, must be conducted in accordance with policy.

4.1 - Procedures are statements of how selected by-laws and policies are to be implemented and of how some other activities of the Association will be conducted.
 
Procedures are subservient to all other parts of the Handbook. If other parts of the Handbook are violated in order to implement a procedure, that implementation would always be out of order. 

I hope this helps as we move forward. OECTA will survive and be even stronger if we all work together within the Association, within the teacher affiliates, and within labour in general. It is time to get united. 
By working together we will serve the best interests of our members.

Let’s talk.

Respectfully,

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com  
 
  
Let the questions begin in the Comment Bar Below!
 [*] Said Bio 
Angelo has been involved in OECTA for 25 years. He has served as chair of the Finance Committee, Provincial Treasurer, Provincial Counsellor, OTF Governor, member of the Educational Aid Committee, Health and Safety Committee, Elementary Workload Task Force, a financial review task force, the Provincial Discussion Table Task Force, OTF Ethical Investment Task Force, Chief Negotiator for his unit, Unit President, and he has attended many CLC, OFL, National Catholic Education, CAPSLE and Workers Health and Safety Centre, seminars and conventions. This is just part of what Angelo brings to the discussion. He is a recipient of the OTF Fellowship award. Angelo has always been very vocal in defending freedom of expression, justice, and the Handbook. This year will be Angelo's 24th AGM.
 
COMMENTS:

196 comments:

David Chiarelli said...

PS: If anybody would like to host a similar independent blog feature for our OSSTF, ETFO or AEFO etc readers please contact me by gmail!

Solidarity!/
Cheers!

David C

Anonymous said...

I have a question for Angelo. Who will win the World Series and how many game will it take?

David Chiarelli said...

Hmmm. Interesting question but it has nothing to do with this blog. Check Angelo's statement of purpose again. Cheers! David C

Anonymous said...

Hi Angelo I will ask a few questions since James Ryan will never do what you are doing now with this Question and Answer blog:

1. Why should any rank and file OECTA member have any faith in a union/AGM voting structure that gives them no say whatsoever in how this union is run? No vote on the MOU?

2. Why should any OECTA member believe in a union that rewards Kevin O'Dwyer with a better job after he got them the worst contract with the MOU and did not allow them to vote on it?

3. Why should Halton OECTA members believe in a Provincial President who refuses to act on their behalf and negotiate a cash payout for their vested sick days like their sister unions OSSTF and ETFO got for their members?

4. Why should OECTA members support a Provincial President/Executive that won't clean up the Discipline Board/Richard Brock dismissal/no discipline board appeals process?

5. Why should OECTA members believe/support their unit presidents? Aside from Richard, you and Kent MacNeill ,no other Unit Presidents have publically stated that they are against the improper procedure used to dismiss Richard. Their silence is approval. Discipline anyone who speaks up for others.

6. Why does OECTA refuse to provide ONE MEMBER ONE VOTE? Seems the leaders don't believe in member empowerment.

7. Can OECTA ever recover from not allowing its members a vote on the MOU? What kind of union doesn't allow its members a vote on concessions?

8. How can OECTA members file a complaint against their Provincial Executive for a complete failure to represent them?

David Chiarelli said...

Whoa Tiger! Heh heh! Whew! Great questions! I'll leave it up to Angelo but might I suggest we limit ourselves to one or two questions at a time, sort of a 1[a+b] type format so we don't overwhelm him time wise coming straight out the gate?

Cheers!

David C

Angelo Ippolito said...

1. The 2013 AGM changed the rules. You now will have a vote on provincial agreements.

2. The PE does not decide who gets hired. This is done by the Personnel Committee. If members want a different process it can be changed by the AGM.

3. Write a letter to the full PE and explain how Section P of the MOU needs to be invoked because this has financially disadvantaged you, in comparison to your public board, and so it is required to be invoked. Using this section starts by a motion of the PE. Until the PE invokes the section, staff cannot act on it.

4, The Provincial Executive knows their duties and powers. I am sure that they take this responsibility seriously. There is nothing stopping members from asking the president or the PE what is being done and can be done to make sure that rules were followed, due process was carried out, and justice was served. Ask and request a response.

5. Contact your unit president and explain the facts as you understand them and ask her/him if those facts support due process, rule of law, and justice. I cannot speak for individual presidents but like me, they are all accountable to our local members.

6. We now ( as of July 1, 2013) have a system where every member will get a vote on "any form of provincially agreement" (2.74 et al). We have always had a vote on locally negotiated changes.

7. Yes. The AGM spoke loud and clear last year, I believe the vote was unanimous and the AGM put in place what was needed to make sure it does not happen again. The message has already been sent.

8. You can write a letter to the full PE explaining your concern and ask for a response. They are elected to those positions. Anyone can run for provincial office.

We need to support each other and that includes both the PE and Richard Brock in the PURSUIT of truth, due process, and justice. These are more than just motherhood statements. They are essential and core values of any democratic organization. Requiring that these values are met is always in the interest of the Association. This is how we can bring back trust, unity, and belief in each other. These values are fundamental to all sides of this, and any issue, so the clear and straightforward realization of them can only bring us together.

Not everyone will be happy but every will know that the right things have been done. That being said, we should never be afraid of the truth, rule of law, due process, and justice. Seek them and require them always. That is what we can do and need to do.

Ask individual members of the PE questions that may be of concern to you and provide input as you may see appropriate. They were all elected to serve all the members of OECTA but they can only address issues and questions if someone brings them up. If no one is bringing them up with their name attached then it could be interpreted as there not being a concern. I have always done this and I am still around.

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

If Angelo was Provincial President OECTA would be restored to honour and respect. The trouble is he isn't leading this union. Face to face, James Ryan doesn't answer questions in that direct manner. I know because I've asked him.

Anonymous said...

Angelo : A few questions about how units are run:

1. Are your Executive paid?
2. Can anyone run for your unit presidency?
3. Are your release officers current OECTA dues paying members? Or retirees?
4. Do you inservice your unit membership on how to run for unit office/executive positions if they want to?
5. Do you believe in terms (e.g. 5years) for Unit President? To ensure fresh ideas/ maximum member involvement?

Anonymous said...

Very informative blog! You are to be commended!

Angelo Ippolito said...

1. We have small payments of $300 or less for three of our executives except for the treasurer who gets an extra $1400 due to the time and work involved. I get 10% more than the average A4 max teacher which is the minimum allowable under OECTA rules. We are a small unit and have to live within our means which we do. It would be unfair to compare us to other units because the workload and number of members make a big difference.
2. Elementary teacher member and occasional teacher members that are affiliated with elementary can run for unit office.
3. They are all members. Two are retirees but they are on the current OT list and therefore full members.
4. I encourage anyone who wants to run and have many times encouraged some who said they were maybe interested.
5. I do not believe in term limits but do believe in having to run for office and asking all the members for a mandate at least every two years. The members can use their right to vote and elect anyone they want. The members have the final say as it should be.

Angelo Ippolito said...

My bio should read as recipient of the OTF Fellowship Award not the OFL Fellowship Award. Just wanted to clear this up.

David Chiarelli said...

C'mon on Angelo! Don't be modest about your OFL [Ontario Football league] Fellowship Award! ;-}

PS: Change made as noted.

Anonymous said...

My question for Angelo. Why is the Pension Plan investing in big box daycares in the UK? Isn't OECTA and OTF against this?

Anonymous said...

Angelo you are a dream come true as a Unit President who answers questions directly. What a breath of fresh air you are in today's OECTA.

Anonymous said...

I would like Angelo to comment on what is happening in the Canadian Senate right now.

John Cafferky said...

Hi Angelo,
1. I know that at an AGM you challenged a report and legal opinion that did not follow our rules to procure those documents. Can you give us a full account of what happened?

2. Can you explain what effect your experience at AGM would have on clause five in the petition I and my colleagues have posted on David’s blog

Clause #5. Admit in writing that the discipline board which met in February before the 2012 AGM did so without any Provincial Executive having appointed any of its members, and met without the knowledge or approval of the Provincial Executive of that year, and that the report they produced while not a legally constituted board is out of order as is true for any report submitted by any group that was illegally called to meet.
Thanks,

John Cafferky

David Chiarelli said...

Methinks the Senate Scandal would be digressing in an OECTA Q+A but I leave it up to Angelo.

Angelo Ippolito said...

I am not fully versed on the Big Box investment. I can tell you that for many years OECTA has supported ethical investment. I would believe this is common among other affiliates. However, the affiliates do not make decisions as to specific investments. This is a decision made by the OTPP. When I was on an all affiliate Ethical Investment Work Group, screens were developed to be used for decisions about investments. For example Child Labour was something that was not supported by that group (of course). I believe such screens are still in place.

The OTPP does have a pecuniary interest in growing the fund. The members of the fund expect this.That being said, there have been studies which seem to support ethical investment as financially sound.

Although I cannot comment on your specific concern, I will look into this further if you want. Let me know.

Angelo Ippolito said...

The Senate scandal.

Well it is not a topic of this blog. I can say that it has turned into a discussion about due process. Due process is important to any organization, Motherhood statement? I guess so,

Wisdom of Thoth said...

Angelo you were asked:

3. Why should Halton OECTA members believe in a Provincial President who refuses to act on their behalf and negotiate a cash payout for their vested sick days like their sister unions OSSTF and ETFO got for their members?

And you answered:

3. Write a letter to the full PE and explain how Section P of the MOU needs to be invoked because this has financially disadvantaged you, in comparison to your public board, and so it is required to be invoked. Using this section starts by a motion of the PE. Until the PE invokes the section, staff cannot act on it.

This is wrong.

OSSTF and ETFO did NOT get a cash pay-out of their VESTED sick days in their agreements. They got a pay-out of their NON-VESTED days, just like your members who did not qualify for a retirement gratuity got a 25 cents on the dollar pay-out if they had under 10 years of service. Halton teachers sick days were vested in their death gratuity even they were first year teachers in on August 31, 2012.

This is not a section P issue. All OECTA members got their non-vested sick days paid out as a result of the OSSTF MOU. Halton members are misinformed if they believe that they are going to get a pay out on a death benefit that only pays out if they die during their teaching career. Just like your own members will not be paid out their retirement gratuity on their vested sick days until they actually retire.

Angelo, this is an example of the problem facing OECTA right now. A lot of misinformation and heresay is being perpetuated on the part of people just because they didn't like the MOU or they don't like the fact the former Halton Elementary president was disciplined.

Please get your facts before you answer a member's question.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Hello John,

You have a good memory. That did happen. At or around AGM 1999 the then General Secretary had a report handed out that contained a legal opinion. It was handed out just before the start of that AGM. After reading it, I concluded that the rules were not followed to procure that legal opinion. After call to order and before we started actual business, I went to a microphone on a point of order. I made the case that the legal opinion that had been handed out was out of order because its procurement was arrived at in contradiction of our by-laws. I stated the by-laws that were contravened. The speaker said that I had made a good point but that he would leave it to the house to decide, The General Secretary then stated his case and I stated my case. The AGM voted on whom to support. Over 80% (maybe much more) of the delegates supported my position. The speaker then ruled that the legal opinion/report did not exist and it was collected. Later in that same AGM the delegates passed a resolution about which the legal opinion was written to help defeat.

The effect on clause five deals with the report from the February meeting of the Discipline Board. If it is determined that the February meeting was held in contravention of by-laws then any report from that meeting would, in my opinion, be out of order. If, and it is a big if, that meeting was held without by-laws being followed then anything that occurred at that meeting would be out of order including any report they may have written. I am sure the PE is looking into this right now. The decision in my experience at that AGM many years ago, could be seen as precedent that rules must be followed for a report legal or otherwise to be in order. It would be a precedent set by the AGM

This would be my personal position and I would make the same argument if that report showed up at the next AGM for consideration. I cannot speak for the Association.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Dear Wisdom of Thoth,

I wrote:

3. Write a letter to the full PE and explain how Section P of the MOU needs to be invoked because this has financially disadvantaged you, in comparison to your public board, and so it is required to be invoked. Using this section starts by a motion of the PE. Until the PE invokes the section, staff cannot act on it.

You wrote:
Angelo, this is an example of the problem facing OECTA right now. A lot of misinformation and heresay is being perpetuated on the part of people just because they didn't like the MOU or they don't like the fact the former Halton Elementary president was disciplined.

Please get your facts before you answer a member's question.

Mr. Thoth,

You should have read my response before you posted. It said that the member should write and 'EXPLAIN' how section P needs to be invoked by showing financial disadvantage. I made no case that I was in agreement or disagreement, I did make it clear that this member like any member has the right to "explain' their side of the story. We now have yours. The member may want to explain their side. Please read the answers before making accusations of misinformation.

Wisdom of Thoth said...

If you read MY comment, I was not accusing you of misinformation. The misinformation was in the question asked and I believed you should have addressed it directly because you know the answer as unit president and chief negotiator. You are perpetuating that misinformation by acting as though the question had merit and should be referred to the provincial executive.

Angelo Ippolito said...

From now on my answers will appear before 8:00 am or after 6:45 pm. I am enjoying the dialogue.

Take care,

Angelo

Anonymous said...

Angelo: Are there any limits/controls on who can run for OECTA Provincial President?

David Chiarelli said...

Hi Toth!

I believe OECTA told Halton Elementary that they had met with the MOE and that they would be accomodated. Like many of the non vested members in the different units they did not receive a red cent yet. This is typical of implementation of the MOU in many OECTA units where even the boards have refused to honour various key terms until the MOE threatened to withhold further $$$$

Angelo has acted in good faith to try to explain procedures to the questions asked which is far superior to the OECTA Code of Silence we usually run into when there are problems. Please let him be.

Otherwise, thanks for your contribution to the ongoing discussion.

Cheers!

David C

David Chiarelli said...

Hi again!

I have noted Angelo's hours and should advise you about mine for next week. As you might have garnered I am going to be taking my blogsite on the road again, to visit the Cuban Schools in the southern part of the island. Internet communications are not great there but I should have no problem moderating the discussions and maintaining the site. However, guest blogs are difficult to post as such, so if you have one coming please get it to me before Sunday.

I will probably post a short blog housekeeping note in the next few days but otherwise it will be business as usual. My concern right now is how to report on the COP when I will be away. Any ideas?

Cheers!
Solidarity!

David C

Anonymous said...

What is wrong with OECTA in the last two years is clearly shown in the exchange between Angelo and "Wisdom of thoth." On one side, you have Angelo seeking and telling the truth and trying to help ALL OECTA members. On the other side, you have someone who would rather provide reasons for OECTA leaders to not provide the same level of service to their members (get sick day payout for vested or nonvested sick days) that members of OSSTF and ETFO achieved for their members. Why argue for less service to OECTA members? The big promise of the MOU was the "ME TOO" clause for all OECTA members- not SOME OECTA members. Keep going Angelo!

Anonymous said...

Angelo is not here to accuse members of misinformation. By letting them know that they can explain their point of view to the correct body is the right thing to do. The PE then should inform the member that the statements are incorrect. That is the PE's job and not Angelo's.

Members may need to know what the correct process is and Angelo is just moving them in the right direction.

Wisdom of Thoth, I certainly read your post as accusing Angelo of wrong doing and he certainly did nothing wrong. You on the other hand sounded divisive, angry, and without focus on due process. Do you know what due process is?

Angelo, thank you for your honesty, sincere commitment to the members, and your courage. We need many more just like you.

Angelo Ippolito said...

I have a few minutes so I will respond to Wisdom of Thoths last post.

Wisdom of Thoth,

Thank-you for clearly stating that I did not misinform anyone. That was not clear in your previous post. I know some of the facts about the Halton death gratuity issue but I may not know all of them. Directing a member to explain their case to the only body that can make a determination about Section P is not only the right thing to do but it may be the only avenue open to that member. I am not judge and jury. I am only interested in helping out while following the rules.

Inflammatory statements by anyone are not helpful but seeking information that leads to a determination of the truth is the right thing to do.

Do I have all the answers? No. Do I have the right to seek those answers? Yes.

If we want to build trust and unity then we need to work together in pursuit of the truth and justice while always keeping in mind that we may not be happy with the truth when we hear it and justice when it is served?

Peace,

Angelo Ippolito

David Chiarelli said...

I applaud your reference to the correct procedures Angelo. However, many members have made just such a complaint to the OECTA PE, Richard Brock and Halton Elementary included. I'm sure the problem isn't that they haven't been properly notified.

So what can a member reasonably do next? This is two years in a row now that there has been a big OECTA policy surprise during the summer. Each time the members learn that it is a matter to be taken up later after the fact at the following spring AGM. Fool me once, shame on me .... fool me twice and .....? To use another analogy, aren't the members just closing the barn door after the horse is gone only to have it reopened again?

Angelo Ippolito said...

David,

I am not sure that you are correct. Members have been talking and many may have posted on your blog but exactly how many have expressed specific concerns to the PE is very unclear.

Individual members can write any PE member, raise concerns, and ask questions. The PE are elected and accountable to the members. If a member feels that a provincial issue needs to be addressed, they should write all the PE members and copy it to their Unit President.

The concerns and questions should be very specific and there should not be any prejudgment. The member can ask for responses.

I remember seeing all the PE's emails here on your site. You may want to re-post them here.

Kate Tagseth said...

Angelo: Do you have any idea when anyone will have a hard copy of our 2012-2014 collective agreement. What I currently have is the former CA, OECTA MOU, appended articles referring to sick leave, top up provisions, and memos that provide interpretation from the unit president. Frankly, I'd like to have the whole thing together, in one place, so I can interpret what it all means for myself. Having asked several people in the unit, and the provincial president, the best answer I've had is "no one has one". That, to me, is unacceptable, given the board was to have provided the LBU with an electronic version "upon ratification". So, we're heading into the next round, and if the MOE and the ONLP gets its way, Bill 122 will be law (because that last round was such an exemplary model of best practice) and we'll be into the next go around. There won't be anything from which to actually compare and make recommendations because we don't actually HAVE anything by which to compare. So if you could do anything to get that ball rolling, or provide something in the way of a meaningful response to that question, it would be appreciated. Looking for answers. Thanks in advance.
Take care.
Kate Tagseth
Former President
Simcoe Muskoka Elementary

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous said...
Angelo: Are there any limits/controls on who can run for OECTA Provincial President?

Dear Anon,
Any statutory member can run for President. There are no term limits but there has been a history of one two year term except for Donna-Marie Kennedy who served for two terms consecutively and James Ryan who will serve for two terms of two years but not consecutively.

David Chiarelli said...

Hmmm. We might have to agree to disagree here Angelo. Richard Brock and Halton Elementary made numerous complaints and appeals to provincial PE about the MOU, Duty of Representation, the interest of the association and the special case of their death gratuity. Look where it got them!

Are you claiming that the concerns + complaints readers have been making here were not forwarded to PE and that they were not aware of them? I'm pretty sure if I republished all the letters from PE last year there would be a pretty big howl of anger because a lot of the reader members felt they were just getting the runaround. No?

BTW glad we can have this frank open discussion. All power to you!

Cheers!/
Solidarity!

David C

Angelo Ippolito said...

Hello Kate,

That is the question of the day. I have received the same question from local members many many times.

The reason you do not have a copy of the 2012-2014 CA is because as of now there isn't one agreed to by the vast majority of Boards. Today we did receive a copy of a letter from James Ryan to the Minister outlining what OECTA is saying as to what is in the our collective agreements. The vast majority of us have not received confirmation from our boards that they agree.

Today was the first deadline that the boards had to meet to receive extra funding. Throughout the month there are other deadlines and the funding decreases as you move forward.

To receive the extra funding the boards have to write an attestation to the ministry stating what is the Collective Agreements.

I have asked for a copy of our attestation.

We are now in a waiting period. I believe we will see those attestations very soon. As long as the ministry accepts the attestation then there could be two scenarios.

1. The attestation is the same as OECTA's position and the CA's are developed cooperatively.

2, The attestation is different than OECTA's position. What happens in this case will be determined by OECTA but a signed collective agreement may not be possible without government intervention.

If the Ministry does not accept an attestation the boards would probably need to resubmit and meet certain requirements if they want any of the extra funding.

Many of these attestations were probably sent today and we will probably hear from the Ministry very soon.

Why it has taken so long and why it may take even longer is a question many of us have grappled with but a certain answer is something I can't give you right now.

The process has for sure been unlike any other we have been through and that process may continue for some time in many boards.

Some areas have agreed as to what is in the current agreement but have not agreed as to what will be the starting point for the next round. The starting point for this next round seems to be a sticking point in many areas.

Kate, I know that this is very frustrating for many members but it is where we find ourselves. Once we see the attestations, I will be able to give a clearer answer but so will every other unit president.

I have shared with my members what OECTA believes to be in the CA. Once I get the attestation, I will also share that with them and point out any discrepancies that may exist. At that point a plan forward will be developed with provincial assistance and local member input. If there are no discrepancies then we start the writing and distribution process.

I have released all the Staff Representatives for the afternoon of November 15. So I do have hope. I hope to be able to give all the Staff Representatives a clear understanding of the rules we are operating under, on that date. The full unit executive will also be there. I have invited our unit's provincial secretariat representative to this meeting.

Nice to hear from you, Kate. Sorry that I could not give you a better timeline of expectations.

Angelo Ippolito said...

David,

Well not so much disagreement.

The PE is aware of all the concerns.

I am just not sure how many members have sent letters to the PE expressing them directly to them.

Just in letters from me, all the PE members are very well aware of the issues and concerns. I know that there have been other letters from presidents.

Other than from Halton, I am not sure how many members at large have written the PE. I just do not know. I also am not sure if volume matters. The factual expression of concerns from a few should be enough for the PE to take serious investigative steps.

It only takes three members to file a procedure 13 against another member. That would cause an investigation.

If hundreds or thousands have expressed concerns in one way or another and those concerns are based on facts well then that is way more than three,

I believe the PE is taking this very seriously.

Anonymous said...

Will there be a protest outside of OECTA's Council of Presidents next week (Thursday/Friday) in support of Richard Brock?

David Chiarelli said...

Hi Angelo!

Sure. The apathy that became apparent after July 5 2012 has been stunning. A lot of OECTA members are beginning to flex their muscles + speak out, even though it still is a fledging teacher movement.

I have great hope that your guest blog can help anybody who wants to know how to do what needs to be done for change, as per the Constitution, by-laws, policies + procedures. Put the words into action so to speak. Keep up the great work brother!

Cheers!
Solidarity!

David C.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Protest.?

I do not believe a protest would a productive en-devour.

Anonymous said...

Can you please explain procedure 13 in more detail? When/how can it be used?

Anonymous said...

Definition The role of the Judiciary is to provide mechanisms for conflict resolutions. This branch of government doesn't make or enforce laws rather it interprets and applies it in dispute resolution. The term judiciary also refers to law personnel such as judges, magistrates and other adjudicators.
The role of the judiciary is to protect the weak from the strong, protecting us from the wrong doing of others and to defend and uphold the constitution of the union and the country. Mr. Richard Brock certainly deserved this protection that he did not get in his “trial”.
We, as a union, should have a judiciary with legal qualifications, deciding serious cases (with heavy penalties) in our union; not an unelected bureaucracy with no legal qualifications.

Anonymous said...

Angelo: Regarding the blog with the comments about the judiciary. Why do we have people who are not elected and who have no legal qualifications deciding on excessive penalties for members of our union? How is this possible?
PS

Anonymous said...

Dear person with the questions about Halton and Democracy,

I have known Angelo for many years and if there is anyone that knows the rules and supports democracy it is Angelo. You may not be happy with what you hear because Angelo will stick to the truth. That's what he does.

I would like to say that it seems that you have information that is available to very few people. This information would probably only be available to the Provincial Executive, specific OECTA staff, the Audit Committee, and the Finance Committee. All of which would have accessed this information confidentially, You have broken confidentiality and should be brought before the Discipline Board. There are other very serious democratic issues with your post. I am sure Angelo will point these out. I will call him but I am sure he has this all figured out because it is obvious.

Finally, your are attacking the members of the Halton unit by posting this. You are not attacking Richard Brock. You do realize this? You are making things worse and trying to divert from the main issues we are dealing with here and throughout other pages on this blog. Angelo, on the other hand, is trying to bring us together and build internal trust through truth and defense of due process by understanding and following our own rules. You are on the wrong side and it is comments like yours that will destroy OECTA.

When someone KNOWS they are wrong, diversion and changing the subject is a strategy that is often used. You have asked the wrong person, because Angelo is not someone you can easily set up for a trap. You have trapped yourself. You obviously don't know Angelo.

I can't wait for Angelo's response.

Anonymous said...

I just called Angelo and I guess I should have known what would happen. He stopped me dead in my tracks and would not allow me to "advise" him on how to answer the Halton democracy questions. He said he would answer truthfully and defend democracy and then he said he was busy and had to go to attend to local issues.

I still can't wait for his response. This is getting very interesting.

Anonymous said...

With respect to the judiciary items the point is that we should have a system in OECTA like in the government - that high penalty or serious infractions go to a higher court (Superior Court) while small infractions go to a lower court (Small Claims). As you know a lawyer is required for the superior court and a paralegal can be used in the lower court. This would ensure that the civil rights of the defendant are protected either way and would ensure that due process is observed in the hearings. Dispassionate experts are required if you are going to have a proper "trial" with witnesses being heard and evidence submitted for both sides. A proper system would also discourage frivolous and vexatious complaints as they could be screened by the legal experts before being brought to "trial".
PS

Anonymous said...

Dear "I can't wait for his response,"

Democracy must happen at the grassroots level. Democracy implies transparency, fairness, equality, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, elections which are fair both procedurally and substantively, and following the rule of law, whether the law of the land or the bylaws of OECTA, including the rulings of the Disciplinary Committee. There has been a great deal of talk about democracy on this blog and it behooves all members of Halton OECTA to respect the DEMOCRATIC process by which Mr. Richard Brock has been dismissed and to move on.

Mr. Brock lived by "the Handbook," and now the bylaws, procedures and outcomes of OECTA have come back to bite him in the ass. The insane ramblings of a few Halton members and some outsiders - far from the majority, we might add - have done little to reverse the growing opinion that a golden opportunity is now presented to the Halton unit, where a new path toward true democracy can embarked upon.

And, ask yourself, "How can I scream for more democracy when my own unit is guilty of running itself like a group of tribal desert camel herders for so many years?"

Wisdom of Thoth said...

David C said "Like many of the non vested members in the different units they did not receive a red cent yet. This is typical of implementation of the MOU in many OECTA units where even the boards have refused to honour various key terms until the MOE threatened to withhold further $$$$"

Anonymous said "On the other side, you have someone who would rather provide reasons for OECTA leaders to not provide the same level of service to their members (get sick day payout for vested or nonvested sick days) that members of OSSTF and ETFO achieved for their members. "

These two statements are exactly what I was talking about.

NO OSSTF member has or will receive a pay-out for VESTED sick days. Their gratuities were frozen as of August 31, 2012 and will be paid out based on that value and their VESTED sick days and salary at that time WHEN THEY RETIRE!!

NO ETFO member has or will receive a pay-out for VESTED sick days. Their gratuities were frozen as of August 31, 2012 and will be paid out based on that value and their VESTED sick days and salary at that time WHEN THEY RETIRE!!

The only "pay-out" for teachers, including some OECTA members, were for NON-VESTED days, in cases where there was a retirement gratuity with a minimum service cut-off and a teacher did not qualify for the gratuity because they had not reached that minimum service level on August 3, 2012.

Halton members had ALL their sick days VESTED as of August 31, 2012. There is no minimum service requirement for their death gratuity. The only requirement was that the teacher has accumulated sick days as of August 31, 2012 and DIES during their career as a teacher in Halton. Halton members will collect the death gratuity based on their August 31, 2012 accumulated sick leave if they die before they retire/resign.

The claim that Halton members would be eligible for a pay-out of their VESTED days because OSSTF and ETFO members are is false AND misleading. It is this information that was used to "justify" actions by the Halton Elementary executive. The members were never eligible for such a pay-out even if the MoU was never signed and continue to be eligible for pay-out under the terms of their previous collective agreement as long as they die during their career with Halton.

I would not bring this up if it wasn't used over and over again as justification for the actions of Mr. Brock and his executive.

You question due process? One important aspect of due process is to use facts. Perhaps it is your definition of due process that needs to be reviewed.

Anonymous said...

To the previous poster that responded to, "I can't wait for his response,"

A committee that never existed produced a report that is always out order, Not only was there no democratic process ( the democratically elected Provincial Executives never appointed the persons who met in February) . someone was fired by disobeying our own rules.

You must be in management, and are trying to deepen the divide in OECTA because a true union person would be appalled and offended by what you wrote. You are trying to mislead the readers by making statements that are absolutely not true. You are telling falsehoods. You are a _______ .

Angelo and James save us because those who want to destroy us are doing one heck of a great job and they are doing it by telling lies.

Anonymous said...

To a previous poster.

You wrote that other should ask themselves: "How can I scream for more democracy when my own unit is guilty of running itself like a group of tribal desert camel herders for so many years?"

This is a prejudicial statement and you should be fired because of your hateful opinions about your fellow but different human beings.

You are full of hatred and not concerned about honesty, truth, justice and peace. You probably have never experienced love and need help to address your self-consuming feelings of hatred. You are showing cowardice by offending and so you may recognize yourself in the following quote.

"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."
Niccolo Machiavelli

Angelo Ippolito said...

Wow! What a day of comments. I am looking forward to responding to all them. I will work on this tonight and tomorrow. I should have all the responses sent to David by Sunday, maybe Saturday night.

I must say that some of these posts cause me to worry. If we are to work together and achieve truth, peace, and justice then we can disagree and even disagree strongly but we must refrain from attacks and insults. This is true no matter what our positions may be.

I will respond as best as I can and I will stick to the truth as I can realistically arrive at based on the facts before me. I will not pass any judgement but some may not like what I write. You may not agree with me and I welcome any criticism based on the facts. I am always ready to be corrected and I have no problem admitting I am wrong if the truth leads me to that conclusion. If we are all willing to move to where the truth leads us, we can move past some of the comments made today and achieve unity. I know that I am ready to commit to this.

Responses will be here this weekend.

Take care,

Angelo

Anonymous said...

A few of these posts seem to be aimed at distracting attention away from the "travesty" that was Richard's "trial". Just because most teachers do not bother to follow the issues of their union, does not mean that some are not very concerned when the union acts like the KGB!

Anonymous said...

Angelo: David did extensive coverage on the problems of Mayor Rob Ford. Should Ford resign? Do you see any OECTA, OSSTF, or ETFO parallels to the Ford situation?

Angelo Ippolito said...

Here is my attempt at a definition of due process as it applies to OECTA.

Due process applied to OECTA's discipline procedure would be to conduct legal proceedings strictly according to established by-laws and procedures, laid down by the AGM to ensure a fair trial.

The respondent and the accused would need to be informed of what the well established practices in conducting the hearing/trial would be, in a timely manner before the hearing date.

The Provincial Executive, the General Secretary, and the Discipline Board must strictly adhere to all the by-laws and procedures that may be applicable where by-laws always take precedence over procedures.

If all these requirements are met, without exception, then due process would be met. If they are not met then due process leading to justice cannot be achieved.

This is how I see it.

If you disagree with my definition of how due process would be realized within OECTA, please write your own and post it.

David Chiarelli said...

All right class!!

If you don't stop threatening to squeal on each other I'm going to have to send you ALL to the office!!! ;-]

Whew!

It is understandable why tempers are so hot after we have all been to hell and back a few times over the past year or so. However Angelo is absolutely correct; if we are going to get our act together we are going to have to be more respectful of each other and the different points of view expressed here on my site.

Sometimes things get carried away, but overall we have some very good discussions and debates here that we can't have otherwise. Please, let's keep it that way.

Or you are all going to have to stay in after school to clean up the blogsite! You don't want that do you?? [insert stern look here] [tap foot once]

Carry on, but puleeeeeeeeeze, pay attention to Mr. Ippolito while he is trying to help us here.

Solidarity!/
Cheers!

David C

Anonymous said...

David and Angelo you are doing a great service for all OECTA members. The thing is when you start opening the box of truth about democracy in OECTA and its units the truth does come out whether it's pretty or not. Keep up the great servant leadership. Just what OECTA needs!

Angelo Ippolito said...

Dear "we" who wrote the Halton and Democracy post.

1. The unit budget is passed annually at a Unit General Meeting. The budget is then sent to the Provincial Office. The revenues and expenses of each unit are audited each year. Every unit must submit a clean audit each year to receive funding. The members of Halton must vote to support this budget. Each unit thus has control and oversight of that budget. It is clearly justifiable as it would need approval in a democratic process. Any member can go to a Unit General Meeting and vote.

2. A. I do not know the specifics. However, any payments like this must be supported by documentation and invoices. This documentation would include specific dates worked. How this question is written implies suspicion of wrong doing. Be very careful. Since the books are audited every year and OECTA continues to send the transfer of funds to this unit, there would be no proof of wrong doing. Mr. Boyle has been a well respected and honourable member of this Association for a long time. Until last year, he was one of the prominent speakers who presided over many of our COP’s and AGM’s.
I see no merit in addressing the second part of this question. I see at as only an unsubstantiated attack. We cannot heal if we act this way.

3,
A. Any member of the Halton Unit can ask the Unit Treasurer what this line is for. Honoraria are common in many organizations. Again, this is a unit decision that is voted on each year at UGM.

4. A. OECTA Provincial only covers the cost of half a room. Each unit decides on their own, if they want to cover the other half. The practice at each unit would need support of that unit’s executive. Once again, the money budgeted for AGM delegations would need to voted on at a unit general meeting. From a rules point of view there is nothing wrong here and the members of Halton can change this, if they want, by a majority vote at the Unit General Meeting. So far, the members of that unit may have decided not to do this.

5. A. This question is very offensive. Before making such outrageous accusations please show us the proof. This is just mud slinging because you happen to feel like throwing mud.

6. A. By saying “try” to pass. I guess that means it did not pass. Democratically, resolutions can be brought to the appropriate General Meeting as long as the rules are followed on how to get them there. Individual members may or may not be in agreement with specific resolutions. This is an example of democracy at its best. Someone brought a resolution thinking it was wise thing to do and the members turned it down. Nothing was imposed without a member vote.

7. A. I am not privy to this information. If this is true, the Unit General Meeting is a higher authority than the Unit Executive just like the AGM and the Handbook are a higher authority than our Provincial Executive. This is a local issue and should be brought up with proof at a local unit general meeting.

8. A. I have no idea if this is true. Every unit can write the rules by which elections and campaigns are run into their by-laws and procedures. Those by-laws and procedures would then apply to all members equally. If only one member is running then mathematically there would only be one set of campaign materials going out.

Conclusion: The by-laws and procedures must be followed. If they are all followed appropriately and you do not end up with what you want, it is time to move on. If they were not followed that is a very different set of circumstances. At the appropriate UGM each year, the members can change the by-laws and procedures. Follow the rules and good luck.

Anonymous said...

We need to see both substantive and procedural due process in OECTA'S union disciplinary proceedings. It appears as if neither substantive or procedural due process was present in the "trial" of Richard Brock. Would you agree that this is true, Angelo?

PS

Anonymous said...

The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or position, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

See the above definition to understand the difference between procedural and substantive due process.

It seems that Richard Brock's "trial" lacked both types of due process! Just substitute the word "union" for "government" when reading the definition above and it should be easy to understand what was wrong about this whole debacle. The union appears to have assumed greater powers than the government via the legal system can exercise! OOPs!
ps

Anonymous said...

Dear Angelo

I have a few questions for you.


1. Should people sign the petition?
2. What number do you see as a good target for the petition?
3. Why is it important that the petition be addressed, if you agree that it needs to be addressed?
4. Is it in the interest of the Association that persons contribute to the legal defense fund?

David Chiarelli said...

Hello Again!

As moderator I must also remind everyone that you can't introduce unsubstantiated numbers, statements and facts without attaching your name, and confirming it with me, so as to take personal responsibility for your what you've said.

Thanks!

David C

Angelo Ippolito said...

PS wrote:

We need to see both substantive and procedural due process in OECTA'S union disciplinary proceedings. It appears as if neither substantive or procedural due process was present in the "trial" of Richard Brock. Would you agree that this is true, Angelo?

Response: Due process where all the rules must be followed must be guaranteed and apparent especially when discipline takes place. If it occurred in this case is what is being debated. A full, open, and independent investigation would provide this information. Until I carefully review the results of such an investigation, I cannot make any public judgments. I have privately expressed my concerns to the Provincial Executive. I am awaiting their response.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Dear Anon,

1. Should people sign the petition?

Response: If they agree with the petition, that justice was not served and rules were not followed. they should go to,http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/oecta-executive-reinstate-richard-brock?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created , and sign it. It is a personal choice.

2. What number do you see as a good target for the petition?

Personally, I feel numbers are not the point here. Seeking the truth and justice are the issues, if these things are missing or perceived to be missing. One person can make a difference. If you feel strongly you should change the sections in the petition to questions and email them to the individual members of the PE. Every member has this right but you must include your name. If you feel strongly, this is how I would write such a letter/email.

Sample Letter

Dear Provincial Executive,

1. Did Richard Brock's“trial” demonstrate fairness, transparency, and due process with all by-laws and procedures being followed from the very first meeting of the Discipline Board in the 2012/2013 school year?

2. Did the PE act in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of our Association, promoting democracy, member rights and following the rule of law in our Handbook and addressing non-compliance with by-laws when they received notice of such non-compliance?

4. What documented evidence is there that all members were treated fairly and with due process, undertaking a disciplinary process that exhibits transparency and impartiality; that embodies fairness and justice; that clearly complies with the standards of administrative justice in Ontario and follows all the rules in the OECTA Handbook?

5. Did the discipline board which met in February before the 2012 AGM do so without any Provincial Executive having appointed any of its members by motion, and they met without the knowledge or approval of the Provincial Executive of that year? Did this Discipline Board produce a report or make any decisions while they were not a legally constituted board? "

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

These are questions that many want answered, in the different pages of this blog but they are questions I cannot answer and cannot be answered in this blog. It is up to you to ask, include your name and ask for a response.

3. Why is it important that the petition be addressed, if you agree that it needs to be addressed?

It would be important to be addressed if by-laws were in fact not strictly adhered to.

4. Is it in the interest of the Association that persons contribute to the legal defense fund?

Again this is a personal decision. It is not my intention to address this here. Members can go to, http://tsu3rdvp.blogspot.ca/2013/10/contribute-to-richard-brock-trust-fund.html, if they want more information. As far as an interest of the Association, seeking justice is always an interest of the Association.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Dear Anon.

You asked members of the Halton Unit to ask themselves: "How can I scream for more democracy when my own unit is guilty of running itself like a group of tribal desert camel herders for so many years?"

I agree with a previous poster who responded to you that this is a discriminatory and prejudicial statement. Please do not use this blog to promote hate. I find this very troubling. Anyone who would resort to such language does not only have no credibility but is very dangerous to those of us who promote truth, justice, and peace.

The members of Halton must disregard such statements for what they are; racially charged words of hatred. You have zero credibility here.

Angelo Ippolito said...

I will never ask David to delete a comment because I am a fierce supporter of freedom of speech. But, make no mistake, I will point it out if someone writes a discriminatory statement intended to demean any group of human beings.

Anonymous said...

We are doing very well with the petition.. Keep those signatures coming!
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/oecta-executive-reinstate-richard-brock
OJC

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote:

Angelo: David did extensive coverage on the problems of Mayor Rob Ford. Should Ford resign? Do you see any OECTA, OSSTF, or ETFO parallels to the Ford situation?

Response: The people of Toronto should decide. As far as parallels I can only see one. The truth always comes out in the end.

Be careful, the truth does not take sides. It is what it is and doesn't change. It is independent.

Anonymous said...

Dear Angelo: Should OECTA support or oppose Bill 122?

Angelo Ippolito said...

Dear PS,

You wrote: It seems that Richard Brock's "trial" lacked both types of due process! Just substitute the word "union" for "government" when reading the definition above and it should be easy to understand what was wrong about this whole debacle. The union appears to have assumed greater powers than the government via the legal system can exercise! OOPs!

Response: To imply that the powers used were above what would be reasonable or lawful, is very serious. Only the PE or an independent court of law can determine this at this point. From my perspective you need to be much more specific and again send those questions to the PE. For example here are three things that need to be addressed. These have been mentioned throughout David's blog.

1. Did the Discipline Board meet last February without motions of appointment from the Provincial Executive as required under 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51?

2. Is it true that Richard Brock was denied a copy of the rules under which he would be tried, when he asked for them?

3. Under 2.51.16 the PE has a duty to receive reports and recommendations from standing committees, networks, work groups, project teams, and task forces. Under this same clause the PE has a duty to only receive recommendations from the the Discipline Board. If the answer to question number one is no, then how could a recommendation be received from a group that was never constituted to begin with?

When you talk about due process not being met, it is not enough to state it in general terms. You must show the specific examples of where the process broke down. Only the PE and the Discipline Board can answer these three questions. I offer them here to advise that you need to get answers before making claims that an unfair trial took place without due process being carried out. There may be more questions that need to be asked. You need to send the questions the full PE and request a response. That would be the correct process.

This is not to say that your belief about the lack of due process is misplaced. You may be right but be prepared to be wrong and be very specific when making such a claim.

Due process, like justice, is always in the interest of the Association.

I hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

While I appreciate your intent Angelo, to provide facts as you know them without degenerating into what is normally found on this blog, I think you need to give your head a shake. Why would you even attempt to give credence to this blog hosted by a retired malcontent who thinks that anonymous postings are valid points of view? As you can see from the comments to your guest blog, there is much confusion, misinformation, half truths and outright lies flowing through this site from various people who are either lacking in knowledge, have an axe to grind, or simply cannot open their mind to another point of view. I would guess this blog is recycling the same 10 or 15 contributors, pretty well all of them anonymous, many whose sole purpose is to create a crisis within OECTA (most likely OSSTF or ETFO members). Of course, Richard Brock is probably contributing on a regular basis as well (sans capitals and size 30 font). For entertainment, this blog rates a 7. After all, where else can you find people spewing this kind of nonsense (other than Duck Dynasty). For thoughtful commentary it's two thumbs down. Get out while you can Angelo.

Anonymous said...

Angelo, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions:

I have seven questions. You did answer one posting with eight questions before, but I understand if you answer only some of them.

1. Many posters have said that the meeting of the Discipline Board held in February was not constituted and anything they did was out of order. I know you do not want to lay blame so can you just give us the technical reasons why this concern is being raised?

2. You posted the definitions of the constitution, by-laws, policies and procedures near the top of this blog. Are you sure that a procedure is subservient to a by-law?

3. James Ryan has said that the PE's hands are tied and there is nothing they can do about a discipline board decision. In your understanding of the by-laws and Robert's Rules is this a valid statement?

4. Aren't you afraid that you will be dismissed as President of your local just like Richard Brock if you truthfully answer my first four questions?

5. How can we find out who called the six people to that February meeting?

6. Someone wrote that you were one of the witnesses for the defense at the July hearing. Is it true that you were not given an opportunity to testify?

7. You have also been seen hanging around with Richard for many years and it is well known that you are friends. Do you feel that this makes you biased?

Thank you for helping us to understand things more clearly.



Anonymous said...

Questions for the Provincial Executive These questions are being sent to the PE for consideration.
1. Did Richard Brock's “trial” demonstrate fairness, transparency, and due process with all by-laws and procedures being followed from the very first meeting of the Discipline Board in the 2012/2013 school year?
2. Did the PE act in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of our Association, promoting democracy, member rights and following the rule of law in our Handbook and addressing non-compliance with by-laws when they received notice of such non-compliance?
3. What documented evidence is there that all members were treated fairly and with due process, undertaking a disciplinary process that exhibits transparency and impartiality; that embodies fairness and justice; that clearly complies with the standards of administrative justice in Ontario and follows all the rules in the OECTA Handbook?
4. Did the discipline board which met in February before the 2012 AGM do so without any Provincial Executive having appointed any of its members by motion, and they met without the knowledge or approval of the Provincial Executive of that year? Did this Discipline Board produce a report or make any decisions while they were not a legally constituted board? "
5.. Did the Discipline Board meet last February without motions of appointment from the Provincial Executive as required under 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51?
6. Is it true that Richard Brock was denied a copy of the rules under which he would be tried, when he asked for them?
7. Under 2.51.16 the PE has a duty to receive reports and recommendations from standing committees, networks, work groups, project teams, and task forces. Under this same clause the PE has a duty to only receive recommendations from the the Discipline Board. If the answer to question number one is no, then how could a recommendation be received from a group that was never constituted to begin with?



Anonymous said...

Open letter to the Provincial executive
(has been sent via email to PE)
Dear Provincial Executive
Please note the change to number seven. I am requesting a response from the full executive to these seven questions. They will greatly assist in determining the truth so that we can have justice served.
1. Did Richard Brock's“trial” demonstrate fairness, transparency, and due process with all by-laws and procedures being followed from the very first meeting of the Discipline Board in the 2012/2013 school year?
2. Did the PE act in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of our Association, promoting democracy, member rights and following the rule of law in our Handbook and addressing non-compliance with by-laws when they received notice of such non-compliance?
3. What documented evidence is there that all members were treated fairly and with due process, undertaking a disciplinary process that exhibits transparency and impartiality; that embodies fairness and justice; that clearly complies with the standards of administrative justice in Ontario and follows all the rules in the OECTA Handbook?
4. Did the discipline board which met in February before the 2012 AGM do so without any Provincial Executive having appointed any of its members by motion, and they met without the knowledge or approval of the Provincial Executive of that year? Did this Discipline Board produce a report or make any decisions while they were not a legally constituted board? "
5.Did the Discipline Board meet last February without motions of appointment from the Provincial Executive as required under 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51?
6. Is it true that Richard Brock was denied a copy of the rules under which he would be tried, when he asked for them?
7. Under 2.51.16 the PE has a duty to receive reports and recommendations from standing committees, networks, work groups, project teams, and task forces. Under this same clause the PE has a duty to only receive recommendations from the the Discipline Board. If the answer to question number SIX is no, then how could a recommendation be received from a group that was never constituted to begin with?
Provincial Executives, this is Related to number seven,
Four Motions that are always Out of Order . See our constitution number 1.10.
A Main Motion reflects the will of the members of the organization! However, the following 4 motions are never in order, even if adopted by a unanimous vote:
1.Motions which conflict with laws (federal, state, or local), or with bylaws, constitution, or rules of the organization;
2.Motions which present something already rejected during the same session, or conflict with a motion already adopted. (See Robert's sections on Rescind, Reconsider, and Amend Something Already Adopted);
3.Motions which conflict with or present substantially the same question as one which has been temporarily disposed of (meaning, Postponed, Laid on Table, Referred to Committee, or Being Reconsidered);
4.Motions which propose actions beyond the scope of the organization's bylaws. (However, a 2/3 vote may allow this kind of motion). This is not possible in OECTA because there is no provision to override a by-law by anyone except the AGM and the AGM would have to change it first. See article, 2.1.

David Chiarelli said...

Hi All!

Hmmm. Well, I'm a retired "happy" content.

There's also over 2018 Comments on my blog site from about 270,000 reader visits to about 418 different posts for 21/2 years now. I could hardly fake that nor the number of people suggested, even more.

Anonymous Comments are allowed because so many of the teachers here have been bullied or have seen what happened when Richard or others stood up and spoke the truth that its the only way they feel free to speak their minds. We all need to be heard

I sign what are I to acknowledge my own words. Others are increasingly doing so. Over all the readership seems pretty resilient and self correcting. When somebody is out of line you increasingly take each other to task yourselves and balance is restored.

Freedom of thought and expression can be hard and it can have its rough edges, but I think everybody here is making pretty good progress at it. IMHO that's why we are being attacked for having these conversations and why some have taken to spreading lies.

Anyway, everybody is free to carry on visiting us here or not. The truth will set you free. The universe is unfolding as it should. The new social media genie is out of the bottle and it isn't possible to force it back in no matter what. I think that's good. Freedom of the press is no longer limited to those who own one, what we think is no longer determined by the few. And if you like there is a teacher open forum here on my blogsite where you can say what's on your mind.

If others want a different kind of site, then go set up one too. I sincerely encourage you too. Maybe you will even get more readers than we have here. If so, I will be genuinely happy for both you and them. It's good to broaden the discussion. That's why we have so many different points of view here.

Welcome to the 21st century!

Carry on!

Pax/
Cheers!/
Solidarity!

David C

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote: Get out while you can Angelo.

Thanks for this. Here at least the lies will be public and can be shown for what they are. That is far better than lies told in corridors and other places. I have no problem with open debate. If you see lies feel free to correct them.

Thanks,

Angelo

Angelo Ippolito said...

Dear Anons who wrote the two comments with the seven questions to the Provincial Executive,

That is the correct process. Those types of questions cannot be answered here. The PE is the right body to refer them to.

As I read your letters it seems you made the same error in the same question. In both of your question number seven I do not understand your reference to questions one and questions six. Did you mean that the reference should have been to question five?

It would then read:

7. Under 2.51.16 the PE has a duty to receive reports and recommendations from standing committees, networks, work groups, project teams, and task forces. Under this same clause the PE has a duty to only receive recommendations from the the Discipline Board. If the answer to question number FIVE is no, then how could a recommendation be received from a group that was never constituted to begin with?

If I am wrong about this correction, please explain your references to us.

Angelo Ippolito said...

To Anon with the eight questions to me. I was waiting for someone to bring these up. Thanks for doing it. My responses follow each of your questions.

Anonymous said...
Angelo, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions:

Anon wrote:

I have seven questions. You did answer one posting with eight questions before, but I understand if you answer only some of them.

1. Many posters have said that the meeting of the Discipline Board held in February was not constituted and anything they did was out of order. I know you do not want to lay blame so can you just give us the technical reasons why this concern is being raised?

A. The poster at 3 November 2013 10:05 said this best in questions five and seven. The concern would depend on the answers to these two questions. Two questions I can't answer. Please see this post above. Until these two questions are answered it would be difficult to make any determination. As far as technical reasons these two questions go to them.

2. You posted the definitions of the constitution, by-laws, policies and procedures near the top of this blog. Are you sure that a procedure is subservient to a by-law?

A. By-laws always supersede procedures under our Handbook.

3. James Ryan has said that the PE's hands are tied and there is nothing they can do about a discipline board decision. In your understanding of the by-laws and Robert's Rules is this a valid statement?

A. I would refer you to by-law 2.51. If by-laws were not followed it would be a duty of the PE to address the situation. What has to be made clear is, were by-laws not followed.

4. Aren't you afraid that you will be dismissed as President of your local just like Richard Brock if you truthfully answer my first four questions?

A. It would have to be shown that I broke a by-law. I am here actually supporting the Handbook and stating that we need to follow our own rules. Seeking truth, justice, and defending the AGM by following the rules that body wrote is always in the interest of the Association. If someone said publicly that these three things were not supposed to be sought or supported then that could end up in disciplinary process. I have no fear of what you suggest in your question. Interesting that this is your question number four.

5. How can we find out who called the six people to that February meeting?

A. Write and ask the Provincial Executive. They would be the only ones that could answer that question.

6. Someone wrote that you were one of the witnesses for the defense at the July hearing. Is it true that you were not given an opportunity to testify?

Yes. I, along with many others on the respondents witness list sat there for a full day and never were given the opportunity to testify. Why this occurred, I am not completely clear but it did happen. The hearing was in August not in July.

7. You have also been seen hanging around with Richard for many years and it is well known that you are friends. Do you feel that this makes you biased?

I have very vocally defended line of authority, the truth, justice, democracy, the Handbook, and the rule of law my whole career. These things go far beyond friendship or loyalty. They are stand alone principles that are fundamental to carrying out the work of an organization properly, with due diligence, and due process. I am not biased because I am acting on deep held and long standing personal beliefs and convictions and that will not change.

Anon wrote: Thank you for helping us to understand things more clearly.

Response: Thank you for asking these questions, especially numbers four and seven.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous said...
Dear Angelo: Should OECTA support or oppose Bill 122?

Response: I am looking forward to a good debate at COP next week. I am sure an official position will come out soon.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote:

Four Motions that are always Out of Order . See our constitution number 1.10.
A Main Motion reflects the will of the members of the organization! However, the following 4 motions are never in order, even if adopted by a unanimous vote:
1.Motions which conflict with laws (federal, state, or local), or with bylaws, constitution, or rules of the organization;
2.Motions which present something already rejected during the same session, or conflict with a motion already adopted. (See Robert's sections on Rescind, Reconsider, and Amend Something Already Adopted);
3.Motions which conflict with or present substantially the same question as one which has been temporarily disposed of (meaning, Postponed, Laid on Table, Referred to Committee, or Being Reconsidered);
4.Motions which propose actions beyond the scope of the organization's bylaws. (However, a 2/3 vote may allow this kind of motion). This is not possible in OECTA because there is no provision to override a by-law by anyone except the AGM and the AGM would have to change it first. See article, 2.1.

Response:

I looked this up and it is true according to Robert's Rules. Number 4 even does have the word "may" in it. I cannot find anything in our Handbook to dispute what the poster wrote after number 4. We have very smart people writing these posts.

You can check it out for yourself at: http://www.roberts-rules.com/parl12.htm .

Anonymous said...

At their September meeting the PE passed a referral motion to set up a Discipline Board. The report on this motion is supposed to come back to them at their December meeting, This was done in public session of that PE meeting.

The Discipline Board members must be APPOINTED by by-law for a minimum of three years. Richard Brock had his hearing at the end of August. This motion was passed less than one month later. Actually it was just a few weeks.

They had to do this because there was no constituted and appointed Discipline Board in August when Richard was fired.

There is no way a Board that has the power to fire someone can be put in place without Articles 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 in our Handbook being strictly adhered to. They were not.

The four areas where Robert's says motions are NEVER in order then fall into place. This has to happen so the will of the AGM in our Handbook can't be violated.

A body with no authority then sent a report and a recommendation to the PE. Since that body never actually existed in February, when they made that report and submitted that recommendation, then everything they did has to be out of order because they were never authorized to do anything and in fact they were never authorized to even meet.

This board that did not exist then takes on to itself extreme powers and apparently have rules on how a trial is to be conducted. When Richard Brock, a constituted and democratically elected president asks for a copy of the rules he will be tried under, the Board that does not legally exist refuses to give him a copy;

This ends up with a board that does not exist firing a president that does exist.

When the PE are notified of all of the above they do nothing to defend the constitution and the by-laws but do pass a referral motion to set up discipline board.

The questions that a previous poster sent to the PE are very good. I agree with Angelo's correction to question number seven. I am not a member but an married to one. I have an extensive legal background. Those questions with Angelo's correction to number seven should be sent by others to the PE.

You should probably add these two questions.

Since there were no PE appointment motions selecting the members and calling them to the February 2013 meeting of the Discipline Board, under whose authority and notification did this meeting take place? On another page in this blog James Ryan admits that there are no motions to appoint the persons who met at this February meeting. At that meeting there were also three people who directly work for OECTA when that Board is supposed to be arms length from the Association. Who chaired that meeting in February?

Angelo, I know this is probably going beyond what you would answer so I won't ask you to confirm the facts that I have written. However, every member of the PE should individually come out and publicly state their case if they disagree with anything I have written. It will be very difficult for them to do that because they would have to not tell the truth and then they would be caught because to many people are witness to the truth.

Angelo, thanks for supporting our family and all the other families of OECTA members. Stay calm and watch your heath. They will try to wear you down because they can't argue with what you represent and publicly support.

Anonymous said...

Angelo, thank you for doing this.

What should we expect from this week's PE and Council of Presidents meeting regarding the Brock dismissal?

Do you have an agenda for the COP? Do you expect the Brock dismissal issue to be discussed?

Angelo Ippolito said...

Some who post on this site may not like to hear this, but my confidence in the Provincial Executive remains intact, They are good people trying to do what is right in these very trying times,

If we stick to the facts or ask for the facts that is a very a good thing but to accuse others of wrong doing without proof does not help the situation.

Remember, what I say is based on my understanding of the truth and the Handbook. I do not speak for the Association. If we all commit ourselves to truth, due process by following the rules, justice and the will of the AGM then we will unify and trust will be restored. Some of us may need to admit we were wrong, and that includes me, but if that is where the truth leads us then that is what we must have the courage to do.

Courage does not mean that a person fiercely defends a position of my way or the highway. It means that we defend the truth even if we do not like it. That may mean to admit we have erred and that takes courage. If the truth supports you then it means that stick to your position and defend it even if others put up obstacles and diversions.

I support the Provincial Executive and have no reason to believe that they are not pursuing the truth, justice, and the best interests of our members.

If you have any concerns or questions just ask the Provincial Executive and have the courage to put your name on it. If all you are doing is pursuing the very same things they are trying to determine, then you have absolutely no problem. It does not mean that uou have to agree with the Provincial Executive. They are good people. Give them an opportunity to complete their work and help them if you believe you have pertinent information or a question they may have not thought of.

It seems that we all want a solution. Then be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Again, just stick to the truth or ask questions that will help the truth come out because that way we will be working TOGETHER and trust and unity will follow.

With deepest respect,

Angelo
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Hey Angelo: What do you think about the OECTA Bill of MEMBERS" RIGHTS?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for doing this. Hopefully your ideas will help us to heal.

This is such a breath of clean and fresh air. You give us some hope that we can overcome our differences.

Keep up the great work.

By the way you have also been seen habging around James for many years and it is widely belived you are friends. Does this make you bias?

Anonymous said...

Charter of Rights and Freedoms Richard Brock's Rights
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
Democratic Rights
DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
ARREST OR DETENTION.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL AND PENAL MATTERS.
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
Read the preceding and judge for yourself whether Richard's rights were violated!

John Cafferky said...

In his letter about the discipline board to the COP, James Ryan appears to say that because the PE accepted a report from that disputed February meeting of the board the PE implicitly appointed the six people to that board. Does our Handbook have any language or provisions that allow the PE to ignore a violation of our by-laws once they have become aware of that violation?

If the PE is not charged with reasserting the by-laws, it occurs to me that a by-law can be violated without any assurance to the members that any corrective action will take place once the violation has been discovered. I feel very uneasy about this situation because it allows individuals in authority to exceed their authority without any accountability. When an individual is dismissed under a process clouded by challenges to its validity, the lack of corrective action on the part of the PE becomes intensely troubling. Would you have any comments on my position?


Thanks,

John Cafferky

Anonymous said...

If three or four articles of the Handbook were broken on the way to dismissing Richard Brock then OECTA has no courage if they do not admit this and restore justice. After that OECTA needs to find accountability from the person or persons who trashed those four articles. 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 were shattered on the way to a conviction where they accused was not even the right to know the rules under which he would be tried and dismissed. If anyone tells you different, they aren't telling you the truth.

Angelo, does the PE have to follow the Constitution and the by-laws?

Angelo Ippolito said...

By the way you have also been seen hanging around James for many years and it is widely believed you are friends. Does this make you bias?

Response: I consider myself friends with both James and Richard, Seeking the truth is not biased.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote: Angelo, thank you for doing this.

What should we expect from this week's PE and Council of Presidents meeting regarding the Brock dismissal?

Do you have an agenda for the COP? Do you expect the Brock dismissal issue to be discussed?

Response: We have agenda. This and many other issues will most likely come up. Expectations are difficult to get a handle on because your expectations may different than mine which may different than some others.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote: What do you think about the OECTA Bill of MEMBERS" RIGHTS?

Response: In a general sense it is not a bad idea. The wording needs some work. As it is, I do not think it would get a two thirds vote at AGM to make it a by-law and not a 90 percent vote to make it part of the constitution. Are you asking me for advice on how it should be written?

Putting rights like this into the Handbook is a worth a good debate at AGM but first you need to write it in such a way that it has a reasonable chance of passing. In my opinion you are not there yet, but it is a step in the right direction.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote: Read the preceding and judge for yourself whether Richard's rights were violated!

Response: In this case what would determine this, is if OECTA followed the Handbook and due process was met. There is much debate about this. Right now I cannot make that judgment. However, if all rules were followed, justice was served and it is fine. If all rules were not followed, it is not fine and an injustice needs to be addressed. To determine this after ensuring that all rules in the Handbook were followed, the answer to question number six from post at, 3 November 2013 09:07, would also be pertinent. I cannot answer or address these things here.

Anonymous said...

Could the previous legal expert answer the question- do the Charter rights apply to Richard's tribunal since our Handbook is supposed to comply with the Law of the Land?

Anonymous said...

a previous poster wrote:

PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL AND PENAL MATTERS.
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law

I think this brings it beyond what others have already said about not following our own rules. It;s my understanding that the only way Richard could speak at his own trial was as a witness. He wasn't given any other avenue. It was not done "according to law" since three by-laws and the constitution were not followed right from the start.The hearing was not public. It was not independent since three staff persons attended their first meeting and someone other than the PE called that meeting. It could not be impartial since a staff person represented the complainants against Richard at the hearing and the chair at that meeting was a former president of one of the complainants. It was not fair because Richard was denied the very rules under which the trial would be conducted. It was also not fair because Richard did not find out until the trial date that his witnesses could not testify according to one the rules he was denied access to, until that point.

There is no legal basis for this removal from elected office not to be overturned. On top of this the PE has a duty to make sure the by-laws and constitution are strictly adhered to. They did not do this.

Since the rules were not followed and after taking into account the other points I have made, and the fact that the GS sent a copy of the Discipline Board decision to all the members, is a prima facie case against the Association for slander and wrongful dismissal.

In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or an element that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in both civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder case presents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim, such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must be proved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On its face, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

The audio tape from the hearing should be very interesting once it is used in a court of law. Explaining away decisions and recommendations from a February meeting that could not have any authority to exist or even meet is legally impossible. OECTA;s case just falls apart from there. Richard;s lawyers and our lawyers have this all figured out.

Angelo, if you are really interested in the truth, unity, trust, due process, and DEFENDING the Handbook, do you have the courage to agree with what I have written? Mr, Brave One, put it on the line or you are just like the rest of them.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to the legal poster for the explicit legal info! There is also the fact that Richard's (the defendant's)witnesses were not allowed
to speak and were locked in a room and kept incommunicado throughout the "trial". I have never heard of this!

Anonymous said...

Angelo: Thank you for all your help and expertise. Could you help OECTA members by translating the OECTA MEMBERS' BILL OF RIGHTS into AGM resolution- friendly language so members could submit it to their units for consideration at the AGM?

Anonymous said...

I am glad that our legal blogger apparently has some sense. It seemed as if everyone was ignoring the more glaring legal issues while debating the handbook issues! Both are important but the legal issues are paramount if we are to live in a country governed by rule of law! Richard's "trial" sounds like a travesty that would happen in the Soviet Union. OECTA should be very ashamed to be a party to it!
ps

Anonymous said...

Back to Wisdom of Thoth's arguing why Halton OECTA members do not deserve a cash payout for their sick days like OSSTF and ETFO got for their union members. Is Wisdom of Thoth an OECTA member? If so, how does one OECTA member arguing for other OECTA members to not receive benefits from the OECTA 'ME TOO" clause help other OECTA members? What a waste of print for that argument. Great Solidarity once again in OECTA.

Anonymous said...

We should add this clause to our constitution/handbook


The first and foremost objective of OECTA shall be to "protect its members" and "ensure that none of the civil, human and legal rights enjoyed by other Ontario residents shall be denied to its members".


This comes from the OSSTF Constitution Article 3.1.1 and may be timely item for us to add to our document
given what has happened to President Richard Brock.

ps

Anonymous said...

The Richard Brock "case"

The biggest issue is the nature of the so called “crime”. Richard had withdrawn his application for intervener status and should not have been “tried” as he had already complied with the directive of the provincial executive. The punishment far exceeds the crime (a crime which incidently was not committed). It is hard to determine exactly what Richard was being punished for, unless it was his opposition to the OECTA MOU, which was shared by many members.
The fact that the GS should have declared this whole matter frivolous and vexatious at the outset since no actual “crime” had been committed by Richard is also problematic. Also, the GS himself had a conflict issue since he and Richard were on opposite sides during the MOU battle in the media and in the court room.
The fact is that the tribunal members should have declared a conflict since they were from units that Richard had problems with.
It is also offensive that the only tool we have, is with the external courts, to resolve an internal discipline matter; and the discipline problem does not seem to be a problem resting with Richard Brock at all.
PS

Anonymous said...

HABEUS CORPUS- no one can be seized and imprisoned, exiled, or stripped of his/her rights without a fair trial.

"Fair" is the operative word here!
PS

Wisdom of Thoth said...

Anonymous posted on 6 November 2013 15:46

"Back to Wisdom of Thoth's arguing why Halton OECTA members do not deserve a cash payout for their sick days like OSSTF and ETFO got for their union members. Is Wisdom of Thoth an OECTA member? If so, how does one OECTA member arguing for other OECTA members to not receive benefits from the OECTA 'ME TOO" clause help other OECTA members? What a waste of print for that argument. Great Solidarity once again in OECTA."

I think the person who posted this comment needs to re-read my post. My point is that ETFO and OSSTF members are NOT receiving a cash pay-out for VESTED sick days. They are only receiving a cash pay-out for NON-VESTED sick days at a rate of 25 cents to the dollar IF they have a retirement gratuity clause in their collective agreements that had a MINIMUM SERVICE REQUIREMENT. In OECTA contracts that had such provisions, they got to take advantage of this clause. Halton teachers DID NOT have a minimum service requirement for their "death gratuity" and as such were VESTED on their date of hire if they were hired before August 31, 2012.

Therefore, Halton teachers were not eligible for cashing out their sick days because their sick days were VESTED, the same way that ETFO and OSSTF members were not able to cash out their sick days if they were VESTED. They have to wait until they meet the terms and conditions of their contracts to collect the gratuity their sick days are vested into - just like OSSTF and ETFO members. In the case of Halton, teachers must die during their service with the board in order to collect their death gratuity, just like Toronto members have to retire in order to collect their retirement gratuity.

Anonymous said...

Why does all leadership in OECTA refuse to draft Constitutional changes to protect OECTA members by making them OECTA's Number One Priority?

Is this union ever going to learn anything from all the destructive mistakes of the MOU?

Any real changes to empower rank and file OECTA Members ever going to happen?

OECTA MEMBERS FIRST.

OECTA SERVANT LEADERS SECOND.

There sure are a lot of COP meetings that result in nothing. Other than more bills for OECTA members to pay.

How much will AGM 2014 cost OECTA members?

Maybe all of AGM 2014 should be reduced to reflect the same level of cuts all teachers are experiencing these past two years?

All leaders need to share the pain of cutbacks so they might negotiate more thoughtfully in 2014.

Express these feelings to your unit executives.

Anonymous said...

Did anything of any consequence whatsoever happen at the PE/ COP meetings this week?

Anonymous said...

I just saw ETFO's list of concerns about Bill 122. Does OECTA have one like this done? Maybe we should start regulating the elected government officials' salaries based on the budget instead, since they are actually the ones responsible for the waste!

Anonymous said...

I think the OECTA PE will find this comment enlightening.

I just spoke with Angelo. I called him because he hasn't posted anything for a week. He said that last week he was very busy with his work and that he would get back to the blog tonight.

I discussed a letter that had been sent to all the OECTA local presidents and the Provincial Executive/ Someone had used our legal posters comments and forwarded it.

Angelo said that how three questions were worded in that letter were "very interesting".

I think that Richard's lawyer may want to start the court case by asking James Ryan these nine questions. The first three found here have already been sent to the PE. I have added the next six.

1. Who chaired that meeting in February when no chairperson had been appointed until the next month?

2. Who called the six persons to the February meeting when no chairperson had been appointed until the next month?

3. Who authorized the calling of this February meeting?

4. Was a report submitted to the Provincial Executive by a board that was not appointed according to the constitution and the by-laws of OECTA?

5. Is it true that by-laws can only be changed by the Annual General Meeting?

6. Can you explain in your own words what what by-laws 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 state?

7. Under the OECTA Constitution, 1.10 you are required to follow Roberts Rules of Order. Under this requirement what takes precedence the by-laws or the procedures?

8. In Roberts Rules any motion that is in violation of a by-law is always out of order. OECTA has nothing in its Handbook that gives the power to anyone but the AGM to change a by-law. It is out of order even if it is by a unanimous vote by the PE. Did the PE receive and accept a report and a recommendation for a Board that was called to a meeting in direct contravention of several by-laws?

9. If a teacher was disciplined to the point of a two year suspension and OECTA found out that the rules required to reach that decision were completely disregarded and someone had set up the disciplinary process without any authority to do this, what would be OECTA;s position and what actions would OECTA take?

These would just start us on the road to the truth and justice. Following these nine questions to the president, legal counsel should follow up with questions like these and many more that fall out from these, to the GS, all the members of the PE and any witnesses that Richard may have.

OECTA can't win this case for four reasons.

1. If OECTA wins, they would have to show that the rules in the Handbook mean nothing and the would have to do it in a public venue.

2, The facts of the case, justice prudence, due process, rule of law, and most important because they would be under oath to tell the truth, OECTA's case falls apart.

3. You could go to jail if you are found in contempt of court.

4. All correspondence, notes, hidden DB rules. and conversations would be brought into an open public forum under oath

Be strong Richard and set a date for your court case ASAP. OECTA has no legal case and they know it.

Angelo or Legal Poster, can you comment on what happens in a court of law if you are found to be in contempt?

PE, are you willing to go to jail to support injustice and insubordination to the AGM?

Anonymous said...

PE,

At your September meeting the PE passed a referral motion to set up a Discipline Board. The report on this motion is supposed to come back to you at your December meeting, This was done in public session of that PE meeting and the motion was sent out.

The Discipline Board members must be APPOINTED by by-law for a minimum of three years. Richard Brock had his hearing at the end of August. This motion was passed less than one month later. Actually it was just a few weeks.

You had to do this because there was no constituted and appointed Discipline Board in August when Richard Brock was fired.

There is no way a Board that has the power to fire someone can be put in place without Articles 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 in your Handbook being strictly adhered to. They were not.

The four areas where Robert's says motions are NEVER in order then fall into place. This has to happen so the will of the AGM in our Handbook can't be violated. That will was violated.

OECTA's case is over even before it starts.

Anonymous said...

Dear Wisdom of Thoth.

If you are an elected leader in OECTA, then the members are not being served. You have no clue what it means to be an advocate for the members. If you are one of the complainants against Richard, you have made it clear what you stand for.

You are for personal vendetta even if it means you have to walk away from the truth, the rules, and even being on the side of union principles. You shame us all.

Do you understand what is being written here? Obviously not.

I just sent nine questions on this blog. Here are some just for you to consider..

Mr. Thoth, if the chairperson was appointed after the February meeting of the Discipline Board, who chaired the meeting in February? If it was a retired member, who appointed this person? If it was not a retired member how is the Discipline Board supposed to be arms length? Why were there three current workers for OECTA at the arms length meeting? Who called the six retired members to this February meeting without any authority to do it? Can an argument be made, that a union person would support, that would allow for the dismissal of a member without due process, all the rules being followed, and due authority being followed?

Mr. Thoth. your response would be greatly appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Thoth,

I, Thoth, the Atlantean,

Wisdom is power and power is wisdom,
one with each other, perfecting the whole.

Keep thou not silent when evil is spoken for Truth
like the sunlight shines above all.
He who over-steppeth the Law shall be punished,
for only through Law comes the freedom of men.
Cause thou not fear for fear is a bondage,
a fetter that binds the darkness to men.

Repeat thou not extravagant speech,
neither listen thou to it,
for it is the utterance of one
not in equilibrium.
Speak thou not of it..

Knowledge is regarded by the fool as ignorance,
and the things that are profitable are to him hurtful.
He liveth in death.
It is therefore his food.
.
O man, list to the voice of wisdom;
list to the voice of light.

Mysteries there are in the Cosmos
that unveiled fill the world with their light.
Let he who would be free from the bonds of darkness
first divine the material from the immaterial,
the fire from the earth;
for know ye that as earth descends to earth,
so also fire ascends unto
fire and becomes one with fire.
He who knows the fire that is within
himself shall ascend unto the eternal fire
and dwell in it eternally.

Fire, the inner fire,
is the most potent of all force,
for it overcomethall things and
penetrates to all things of the Earth.
Man supports himself only on that which resists.
So Earth must resist man else he existeth not.

All eyes do not see with the same vision,
for to one an object appears of
one form and colour
and to a different eye of another.
So also the infinite fire,
changing from colour to colour,
is never the same from day to day.

Thus, speak I, THOTH, of my wisdom,
for a man is a fire burning bright
through the night;
NEVER is quenched in the veil of the darkness,
NEVER is quenched by the veil of the night.

Into men's hearts, I looked by my wisdom,
found them not free from the bondage of strife.
Free from the toils, thy fire, O my brother,
lest it be buried in the shadow of night!

Man is a star bound to a body,
until in the end,
he is freed through his strife.
Only by struggle and toiling thy
utmost shall the star within thee
bloom out in new life.
He who knows the commencement of all things,
free is his star from the realm of night.

Everything that has being is passing into yet other
being and thou thyself are not an exception.

Consider the Law, for all is Law.
Seek not that which is not of the Law,
for such exists only in the illusions of the senses.
Wisdom cometh to all her children
even as they cometh unto wisdom.

All through the ages,
the light has been hidden.
Awake, O man, and be wise.

Deep in the mysteries of life have I traveled,
seeking and searching for that which is hidden.

List ye, O man, and be wise.

Oft have I journeyed the deep hidden passage,
looked on the Light that is Life among men.
There 'neath the flowers of Life ever living,
searched I the hearts and the secrets of men.
Found I that man is but living in darkness,
light of the great fire is hidden within.

Reach ever upward, O Soul of the morning.
Turn thy thoughts upward to Light and to Life.
Find in the keys of the numbers I bring thee,
light on the pathway from life unto life.

Seek ye with wisdom.
Turn thy thoughts inward.
Close not thy mind to the flower of Light.

Place in thy body a thought-formed picture.
Think of the numbers that lead thee to Life.

Clear is the pathway to he who has wisdom.
Open the door to the Kingdom of Light.

Pour forth thy flame as a Sun of the morning.
Shut out the darkness and live in the day.

Take thee, O man! As part of thy being,
the Seven who are but are not as they seem.
Opened, O man! Have I my wisdom.
Follow the path in the way I have led.

Masters of Wisdom,
SUN of the MORNING LIGHT and LIFE
to the children of men.

wis·dom (wzdm)
n.
1. The ability to discern or judge what is TRUE, RIGHT, or LASTING; insight.

Anonymous said...

To: James Ryan and Marshall Jarvis,

fairness - noun: aequitas, appropriateness, balance, disinterestedness, dispassionateness, equality, equitable treatment, equitableness, equity, evenhanded justice, evenhandedness, fair-mindedness, fair play, fair treatment, honesty, impartiality, integrity, iustitia, just dealing, justness, lack of corruption, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, probity, reasonableness, rectitude, right, rightfulness, rightness, scrupulousness, unbiasedness, uprightness

OECTA did not meet any of these synonyms of fairness, in this case. One by one these words would need to be explained as they apply and are not satisfied in this case. The official spokesperson for OECTA is James Ryan. James Ryan would have to confront these legal principles one by one and he would have do it under oath in a court of law.

James Ryan has Mount Everest to climb in mid February and all he is wearing is sandals, shorts, and a t-shirt that reads Union Buster.

Who needs to be protected to such a point that James Ryan would sacrifice 70 years of OECTA history and all the principles union members have bravely fought and died for, over many years? Then again, the previous president did just that.

Angelo, does the handbook allow for injustice to be carried out when the Provincial Executive do not act in "accordance" with the by-laws and the constitution? Can you show us where, if this is the case? I can't find anything to justify such a conclusion.

Anonymous said...

This letter went out today Remembrance Day to thank those who have helped our effort thus far. It reads:

Thank you to those who signed the petition to Reinstate Richard Brock. A full investigation into his "hearing" is now being done thanks to our efforts in the petition and the efforts of staff reps. (past and present) and presidents throughout TSU and the entire province.

http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/oecta-executive-reinstate-richard-brock

Also thank you to our veterans who saved/preserved our system -our constitional democracy and rule of law- so that we could have the freedom of speech and assembly that allowed us to make these efforts which we would have been unable to do in a dictatorship. May God bless them all. Let us hope that we are "carrying their torch"!

Anonymous said...

Bylaws
The rules and regulations enacted by an association or a corporation to provide a framework for its operation and management. A higher authority directs a lower authority to follow these bylaws. The lower authority authority has no right to not follow the bylaw without approval of the higher authority.

Bylaws may specify the qualifications, rights, and liabilities of membership, and the powers, duties, and grounds for the dissolution of an organization.

bylaws n. the written rules for conduct of a corporation, association, partnership or any organization. They should not be confused with the Articles of Corporation which only state the basic outline of the company, including stock structure. Bylaws generally provide for meetings, elections of a board of directors and officers, filling vacancies, notices, types and duties of officers, committees, assessments and other routine conduct. Bylaws are, in effect a CONTRACT among members, and must be followed and FORMALLY adopted and/or amended.

Anonymous said...

3.1. At all times the essential question is what the parties intended by the language they used, viewed objectively, in the circumstances in which the agreement was made.

12-043 Intention of the parties. The task of ascertaining the intention of the parties must be approached objectively. The cardinal presumption is that the parties have intended what they have in fact said, so that their words must be construed as they stand.

12-046 The expression "construction" as applied to a document includes two things: first, the meaning of the words; and, secondly, their legal effect, or the effect which is to be given to them. Construction becomes a question of law as soon as the true meaning of the words in which an instrument has been expressed.

3.2.1 Parol Evidence Rule
As a general rule, where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous, then no extrinsic or “parol evidence” will be admitted.

Where a contract is ambiguous, however, and that ambiguity cannot be resolved contextually within the four corners of the contract, the court may suspend the parol evidence rule and allow extrinsic evidence to be admitted.

Where the language in a contract is clear and unambiguous, it alone can be looked at to ascertain the intent of the parties. Where, however the words are ambiguous, in the sense that they are susceptible of more than one meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstances may be admitted, not to vary, add to, or contradict the terms of the contract, but to ENABLE the Court to read and construe the language in relation to the facts.

3.2.2 Doctrine of Contra Proferentum
Under the doctrine of contra proferentum ("against him who uses them") ambiguous words in a contract are to be interpreted in a way that is less advantageous to a drafting party.

As applied to OECTA. There is no ambiguity because by-laws always supersede procedures. Since by-laws are the enabling words under which a procedure can be implemented, absence of adherence to the by-laws make the procedure invalid. Not to do this would have the effect of having processes implemented without legal authority to do so. Articles 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 are not only clear but they support each other in their clarity. We can interpret this as quadra-clear. This creates an unambiguous contract with the members. This contract then has procedures that can only be enacted after these articles are fully complied with. In this case we already have written admission that the four articles were not followed and an implied admission that they were not followed due to the Discipline Board referral motion made at the September Provincial Executive meeting.

Taking into many other problems with OECTA's case: refusal to share the rules under which the accused would be tried with the accused, not letting witnesses testify, attendance by and participation by employees of the association both in meetings and the trial itself, correspondence with Discipline Board members before they were appointed (they still have not been appointed), having a perceived biased person chairing the hearing, plus much more leaves me no choice but to say that OECTA, based on legal grounds, cannot have their position upheld in a court of law unless they can convince the Annual General Meeting to agree that the PE has the power to disobey the very rules the AGM wrote thus making the Handbook nothing but a collection of pages without authority. If they cannot get the AGM to agree to this, then the supreme authority of the AGM stays, the Handbook is validated as the rules of the AGM, and the Provincial Executive is mandated to follow those rules. Staff as always fall under the authority of the Provincial Executive. Staff can never go contrary to the Constitution, by-laws, and policies of the Association. Staff must always follow procedures but only after the enabling motions following the bylaws have been passed. Staff can never implement a procedure without being authorized by a higher authority,

Sincerely,

Law Man

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote: Angelo or Legal Poster, can you comment on what happens in a court of law if you are found to be in contempt?

Response: Taken from an article by Andrew Feldstein,

This Ontario Superior Court decision provided an excellent overview of how contempt orders operate in the province of Ontario. This case outlines the many different ways a court can craft a contempt order; and serves as a warning to individuals who are flaunting court orders.
This case began as a contempt motion by the applicant wife; regarding a divorce order the parties received in November 14, 2007, in terms of the corollary relief in the order. The respondent husband had failed to disclose within ten days a Notice of Re-Assessment, and by failing to transfer his interest in the parties’ farm to the applicant wife. The court found the respondent in contempt and then determined what the penalty should be imposed upon the respondent for his contempt.
The court first discussed Rule 31(5) of the Family Law Rules which states:
31.(5) If the court finds a person in contempt of the court, it may order that the person,
(a) be imprisoned for any period and on any conditions that are just;
(b) pay a fine in any amount that is appropriate;
(c) pay an amount to a party as a penalty;
(d) do anything else that the court decides is appropriate;
(e) not do what the court forbids;
(f) pay costs in an amount decided by the court; and
(g) obey any other order
The court evaluated each of these options. The court stated that contempt penalties should be comprised of two components; it should be restorative to the victim of contempt and punitive to the contemptor. The court considered the following factors in determining the proper punishment:
the available sentences;
the proportionality of the sentence to the wrongdoing;
the similarity of sentences in like circumstances;
the presence of mitigating factors;
the presence of aggravating factors;
deterrence;
the reasonableness of a fine;
the reasonableness of incarceration.
The court then applied these considerations to the facts of the case. The respondent sought credit for payments he made towards the mortgage on matrimonial home during a period up until July of 2008. The court pointed out that he would not have had to make these payments had he transferred the interest in the farm to the applicant. The court determined that he would have been entitled to a credit; had he not been found in contempt of the Divorce Order. The court used the payments as the punishment; blocking a credit for the mortgage payments. The court further required him to make further mortgage payments until the property was transferred. The court determined this would be the most reasonable punishment for the respondent; it served as an economic disadvantage but was not severe enough warrant incarceration. The court stated that incarceration was appropriate in cases where there are no less restrictive sanctions appropriate, or where there have been multiple breaches of court orders.
The court stated that the respondent did not deny the facts that constituted contempt, though he did not admit his contempt. This functioned as a mitigating factor but was not enough to excuse his contempt. The court also awarded costs against the respondent; stating the contemnor (in this case the respondent) must pay the solicitor and client costs of the other party. This case demonstrated the wide range of different punishments a court can level against a person found in contempt; and the severe financial consequences that can go along with it.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote: Angelo, does the handbook allow for injustice to be carried out when the Provincial Executive do not act in "accordance" with the by-laws and the constitution? Can you show us where, if this is the case?

Response: Injustice can never be allowed thus validated by any by-laws, policies, or procedures. You did not find anything because not only is it not there but it cannot be there, Organizational internal rules can never be used (or written ) to promote or enact injustice. The opposite would be an unreasonable and nonsensical approach and argument.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote:

Mr. Thoth, if the chairperson was appointed after the February meeting of the Discipline Board, who chaired the meeting in February?

If it was a retired member, who appointed this person?

If it was not a retired member how is the Discipline Board supposed to be arms length?

Why were there three current workers for OECTA at the arms length meeting?

Who called the six retired members to this February meeting without any authority to do it?

Can an argument be made, that a union person would support, that would allow for the dismissal of a member without due process, all the rules being followed, and due authority being followed?

Mr. Thoth. your response would be greatly appreciated.
11 November 2013 11:22

Response: It looks like wisdom of Thoth is getting a lot of attention and many questions. That is great. I look forward to his responses. The more the merrier.

Take care,

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Angelo: What do you think?

We should add this clause to our OECTA Constitution/Handbook:


"The first and foremost objective of OECTA shall be to protect its members by ensuring that none of the civil, human and legal rights enjoyed by other Ontario residents shall be denied to its members".


This comes from the OSSTF Constitution Article 3.1.1 and may be timely item for us to add to our document
given what has happened to President Richard Brock or could happen to any OECTA member.

Check the OSSTF Constitution. There's an Appeals Process to Disciplinary Actions. Why doesn't OECTA have an Appeals Process? Why do OECTA leaders not protect OECTA members from arbitrary power? Why do OECTA union procedures NOT conform to Ontario and Canadian legal systems?

Angelo: How do you feel about these statements?


Anonymous said...

Mr Thoth,

I would like to add two questions to your list.

1. Is it true that that Richard Brock's was not given a copy of the rules he would be tried under when he requested them?

2. If a teacher was disciplined to the point of a two year suspension and OECTA found out that the rules required to reach that decision were completely disregarded and someone had set up the disciplinary process without any authority to do this, what would be OECTA's position and what actions would OECTA take?

I suggest that you put these two questions in a letter to the PE with all the other questions you have been asked. Request from them a response and then you will see what happens. You seem like a reasonable person and only want the truth like the rest of us. Ask for it.

Here are the other questions asked of you. Unless you are on the PE you will not be able to answer them. Doesn't it trouble you that these questions have been asked for months but the PE does not answer?

Mr. Thoth, if the chairperson was appointed after the February meeting of the Discipline Board, who chaired the meeting in February?

If it was a retired member, who appointed this person?

If it was not a retired member how is the Discipline Board supposed to be arms length?

Why were there three current workers for OECTA at the arms length meeting?

Who called the six retired members to this February meeting without any authority to do it?

Can an argument be made, that a union person would support, that would allow for the dismissal of a member without due process, all the rules being followed, and due authority being followed?

Anonymous said...

If we had 10 more at OECTA like Richard Brock there would have been no MOU! Bring back the MAN! We need Richard!

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

Could the previous legal expert answer the question- do the Charter rights apply to Richard's tribunal since our Handbook is supposed to comply with the Law of the Land?

Response: I have already laid out much of the legal groundwork and expectations. To your queries, ALL laws of the land take precedence over the Handbook. I can see no legal grounds to support the dismissal of Richard Brock. OECTA has very good lawyers. If James Ryan has the good sense of meeting with them privately with only the elected executive, I am sure they will let him know the truth. OECTA has to be very careful that if strategies are developed to protect an individual or individuals, a cover up will ensue and then untruths will have to be developed to stabilize other untruths and so on and so on. Within the Association this may work but in a court of law it will be shown for what it is. Contempt of court is very serious and it will all be public.

Contract Law is just one area that is pertinent to this case. There is much more.

ie: To say that a meeting took place in February and you appointed the participants to that meeting after the fact (without even a motion to appoint them), would be admitting that someone called them to that February meeting without authority, and that would be torn apart in court. OECTA broke its contract with the members.This is a cross examiners dream and that is only one point. There are fourteen such points that I have found thus far and I have just started looking.

Beware of diversionary tactics. This is what always happens when one party has no case. OECTA will bring up issues and they may be factual but they will not have anything to do with the case. In court they will not be allowed but the members and the PE will be subjected to these diversions before they go to court. Be wary and be wise.

Law Man

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anon wrote: "The first and foremost objective of OECTA shall be to protect its members by ensuring that none of the civil, human and legal rights enjoyed by other Ontario residents shall be denied to its members".
Check the OSSTF Constitution. There's an Appeals Process to Disciplinary Actions. Why doesn't OECTA have an Appeals Process? Why do OECTA leaders not protect OECTA members from arbitrary power? Why do OECTA union procedures NOT conform to Ontario and Canadian legal systems?

Angelo: How do you feel about these statements?

Response: Taking a few minutes out of my lunch. I will have more to say about other things this evening.

Talking about your first statement and the appeal process, these are very good points. They need to be sent to the Provincial Office before December 1, 2013 written as AGM resolutions. Your unit president can assist you with this and explain the process. Personally, I would be supportive of such resolutions as by-laws. You would need to figure out where they go and whose duty it would be to ensure them.

David Chiarelli said...

Hi Angelo!

Can you or somebody else update us on what the response was to the Rob Ford debacle last week at PE and COP while I get the blogsite back up to speed?

Thanks!

David C

Wisdom of Thoth said...

It's kind of funny that I simply responded to correct the lies being spread that Halton teachers were being "denied" cash pay-out of their vested sick days when NO TEACHERS (OSSTF, ETFO, OECTA, or anyone else) are being paid out for their VESTED sick days.

Now there are a bunch of questions about the Richard Brock discipline proceeding, which I know about as much as anyone else (well maybe a little more, based on the comments I read here) and care about even less.

This section is called "Ask Angelo" - hen volunteered to answer the questions, let him. I am just here to point out misinformation when it appears here.



David Chiarelli said...

Thanks for your contributions too Toth, but my site is pretty self correcting over time and we hear out all points of view. Have you a site of your own where you moderate that we might visit for the purpose stated?

Wisdom of Thoth said...

Nope. I only wandered over here from your link on Twitter. Far too busy to keep a blog like this. Not all of us are retired, yet!!

Angelo Ippolito said...

Thanks Thoth

Your contributions and the response you received sure sent some oompa through this blog. You got some great questions asked to you. I hope they get answered by someone.

I understand why you would not answer them. Like you, Mr. Thoth, we are all interested in identifying the truth.

We have many very smart posters and I welcome the contributions of Law Man.

You should start a Wisdom of Thoth blog.

Angelo

Angelo Ippolito said...

Rob Ford was not up for discussion at COP.

David Chiarelli said...

My sincerest regrets Angelo! Maybe too much sun in Cuba?!? I meant to ask if you could inform us on the response to the Richard Brock Debacle at PE and COP last week, while I was updating my Ford blog, hence the mix up. Mea culpa! What happened with the Richard issues, questions and concerns?

David Chiarelli said...

BTW folks: Not every teacher/ educator with something interesting to say can start a blogsite but all are welcome to submit a guest blog here. Angelo's has certainly created a valued, positive thought provoking + much read forum for the OECTA readers + others visiting here!

Angelo Ippolito said...

David wrote: My sincerest regrets Angelo! Maybe too much sun in Cuba?!? I meant to ask if you could inform us on the response to the Richard Brock Debacle at PE and COP last week, while I was updating my Ford blog, hence the mix up. Mea culpa! What happened with the Richard issues, questions and concerns?

Response: There are two investigations that have or are currently taking place, It looks like the PE will complete their consideration of those investigations in December. There are many questions and issues that need to be considered. Law Man and others have made some valid points on this blog. Hopefully, the PE is reading these posts and will be taking all of these things into account as they move towards a decision. Interested persons can submit their thoughts and questions to the PE. At least one person did copy and paste two of the posts here and sent it to the PE, all the bargaining unit president and added three questions. A poster has put those three questions plus others on this page. We received this at COP on the Wednesday morning. If anyone does something like this I very strongly urge that you stick with the pertinent questions and facts as you believe them to be. Do not jump to conclusions and accusations. Simply state your concerns and ask the right questions.

If you or anyone wants questions answered, it looks like you will need to send them to the PE very soon so they can consider them at, or before, their December meeting.

We should have a decision by Christmas.

A court case may be what comes next depending on that December decision. Their are many OPINIONS on this page, and on your "legal" page, as to how that case will go. I am sure that the PE is aware of these possibilities. Law Man and others provide thought provoking reading.

David Chiarelli said...

An interesting PE response but I'd still want transparency in the process: Who is being hired? What are their directions? How is anybody being held accountable?

Another concern: Don't forget the "C" in OECTA. The sheer over response and consequences of the Discipline Panel decision show no sense of justice and proportion regardless of the legal case. Is there anything truly Catholic about what OECTA does + how they do it anymore? If not, perhaps there should be another motion to remove the "C" from the unions name this AGM?

Finally, what about Mr. Brock himself, and the Halton Elementary unit members? Can you imagine the financial + psychological stress of anybody in the union being treated like Mr. Brock? Also, the unit is being denied their legally elected president who can't even attend any of the units meetings to advise and share his necessary knowledge to assist in their affairs after suddenly being removed after 25 yeas in office, and by a 3rd party at that?

For shame!

BTW: Mr. Ryan publically welcomed me back from Cuba last night on Twitter which is a far throw from the response last year! ;-) Progress of sorts I suppose. Would suggest at least some of the PE is aware and paying attention which still leaves me hopefully considering the end game of the latest OECTA Provincial moves.

Angelo Ippolito said...

David Chiarelli wrote:An interesting PE response but I'd still want transparency in the process: Who is being hired? What are their directions? How is anybody being held accountable?

Response: James did tell us who was hired to do the investigation. You can ask him. I am not comfortable stating it here. As far as directions, I am not sure but I was told that the questions I sent to the PE will be answered. I know others have also sent questions to the PE that will be answered.

This Guest Blog is more about information as to how to get to the truth and justice. Members need to put their concerns, opinions, and questions to the PE if they want them answered. Like I have said many times, I have no doubt that the PE is as interested in getting the truth out and making sure justice was served as those who post here.

Members have to get over any fear they may have and send an email to the PE with their name on it. Seeking truth and justice is always in the interest of the Association. Stay away from conclusions and accusations, state your case, ask your questions and send in to the PE asap as the decision may be coming soon. No matter what your position is, you have a right to do this. If you think justice was served or not, you have a little time left to have your voice heard.

No matter what occurs, we all have to be ready to admit we are wrong if the truth does not go our way. That includes me and the Provincial Executive.

I have repeated myself but this is the bottom line.

One person speaking the truth can make all the difference.

Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
Buddha

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.
Albert Einstein

Angelo Ippolito

angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

This what a judge said about Mayor Rob Ford a year ago.

Judge: Ford actions "characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence...amounting to willful blindness."

So this is what a judge will say in a court case brought by Richard Brock.

Judge (projection): OECTA actions "characterized by ignorance of the law, their own rules and a lack of diligence...amounting to willful blindness and disregard for due process resulting in an unauthorized process leading to unjustified dismissal. Damages to complainant Richard Brock shall be $$$$$$ and his dismissal is reversed effective immediately. OECTA shall pay the complainants legal costs and all court costs. OECTA shall send a copy of this decision to all members of that association."

Law Man. David or Angelo what do you think?

Anonymous said...

To Anon that projected a judges possible words.

As I see it you will be right or close to it. If you check out my previous posts and others who seem to have a good understanding of the law, there seems to be no way out of this for OECTA. I love the Winston Churchill quote from Angelo.

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill

Provincial Executive, you know it and "there it Is". No way around it.

Two more legal poinst.

Accepting a report and recommendation from a Discipline Board that never existed is a non-starter in a court of law because such action would mean that the Provincial Executive have delegated the duty to appoint to a staffer. Past practice would have no effect here as it would have to have been widely known among the members and the accused that the four areas of the constitution were not being followed. Secondly, dismissing someone by admitting the rules were not followed doesn't work in a court of law because the contract was broken without due notice. Thirdly, and most impoirtant, you cannot give notice to break a contract without the other side agreeing to it.There is no where in the Handbook that makes this possible. The AGM ONLY gives the right and duty to appoint to the PE. There is no ambiguity here. As I have written earlier it is quadra clear. A lawyer will have no problem having this argument dismissed because if it is not dismissed the PE would have to PROVE that they are a higher authority than the AGM. That is impossible.

It is not the role of the PE to make authorship/contributorship decisions or to arbitrate conflicts related to authorized authorship. ... All contributors (unconstituted Discipline Board) who do not meet the criteria for authorship cannot submit recommendations. The criteria (appointment motion for all six participants) for authorship must be met first. Here the right to authorship is dictated and made mandatory by four articles in the constitution and by-laws of OECTA.

David, I am not a member but you or another member should send this to the PE. Angelo, I understand you have already sent letters to the PE. It should be someone else so the PE know that others have figured this out.

Yours,

Law Man

David Chiarelli said...

Dunno ... in both cases, OECTA PE and with Ford we have situations where nobody can seem to do anything in the face of blatant wrongs + an abuse of power. Sad. A sign of our times!

I can't see the Brock decision holding up to a 3rd party legal review or a civil court case. However the law is often an ass. Optimistic side would seem to be that if the Brock decision gets thrown out we can see a good housecleaning up at St.Clair. If it doesn't OECTA is screwed, which as things now stand it is anyway.

The reasons why Richard should be reinstated have been stated numerous times and from numerous perspectives here on this blogsite. Now, if only, as Angelo suggests, the writers would submit them as questions sent directly to OECTA PE for a response prior to the upcoming legal review we might get something done! Its very important. Members get busy!

Solidarity!
Cheers!

David C

Angelo Ippolito said...

Law Man wrote: The AGM ONLY gives the right and duty to appoint to the PE.

Response: Thanks Law Man for your insight. Your many posts have shone much light onto our understanding. You are right when you write that the AGM only gives the right to appoint the six members of the Discipline Board. The February meeting of that board and any reports or recommendations from that meeting would be very difficult to defend in court.

I have read your stuff closely and you make a lot of sense. However, I am not a lawyer. But if you are even 70% right we have a big problem.

Hopefully members will take your words of wisdom, turn them into comments and questions to the PE and send them in. Only the PE can address these issues.

Law Man wrote: Beware of diversionary tactics. This is what always happens when one party has no case. OECTA will bring up issues and they may be factual but they will not have anything to do with the case. In court they will not be allowed but the members and the PE will be subjected to these diversions before they go to court. Be wary and be wise.

Response: Our members will see right through diversionary tactics if they are used. I am confident that the PE will stick to the facts pertinent to the case and not be led astray by anything that is not relevant. I agree that in a court of law diversionary and irrelevant facts would very likely be deemed as inadmissible. The PE would know this and treat such information appropriately.

Law Man, keep up the posts. They are very helpful as we all seek justice.

Are you a labour lawyer? :)

Yours,

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Angelo wrote:

Are you a labour lawyer? :)

Response: I leave that to speculation which is inadmissible in court.

More Legal Stuff

OECTA's bylaws are one of the most important, if not the most important, document there is relating to the organization. It contains the legal description of what the organization is, how it is organized and how it operates. More importantly, failure to follow the provisions of the bylaws can have devastating legal consequences for an organization and perhaps even for individual board members.

It is imperative that Board members know what the bylaws say and then work to ensure they are followed by the organization. As mentioned, bylaws are a legal document.

OECTA must ensure that the rights of the members are clearly delineated and that the rights are not being ignored or abused by the board. Boards have been known to have members sue them for violating their rights and/or benefits.

OECTA is one of the thousands of organizations whose bylaws adopt Roberts Rules of Order for the organization, you should understand that when you adopt Roberts, you have just added hundreds of pages of parliamentary minutia to your bylaws. In OECTA it is a constitutional requirement. There is nothing in the Handbook that overrides this in the case of bylaws 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51.

Adverse Actions. Boards occasionally face situations that call for adverse actions of some sort, including director or member removal. It is imperative that procedures and the bylaws specify how such adverse actions will be conducted and how they will incorporate any due process required by your state. Then the organization must follow the bylaws specified. If not followed, bylaws create the basis of a legal challenge to actions taken. In OECTA they were not followed.

Remember that the first document an opposing attorney will ask for when attacking an organization’s actions or decisions are the bylaws. OECTA has found itself caught short by taking actions not in compliance with the bylaws.

OECTA's bylaws constitute legal requirements that cannot be waived or abrogated. They are a legal contract you signed and reaffirm every year with all your members. Yet you broke that contract.



Anonymous said...

I wrote: OECTA's bylaws constitute legal requirements that cannot be waived or abrogated. They are a legal contract you signed and reaffirm every year with all your members. Yet you broke that contract.

When James Ryan wrote the letter to COP he stated that it is legal counsel's "belief" that by accepting the report from the February meeting of a non-constituted group that group became constituted.

Well, legally this makes no sense. If the Executive makes this argument in court they will have to admit that an unauthorized person appointed the participants to that February meeting. Once this occurs that meeting would be declared invalid and EVERYTHING they did at that meeting would be have no legal weight. The Executive, can't before or after the fact, delegate their duties under 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. It is very simply not allowed.

Note that in the letter James sent to the COP he does not say that the Provincial Executive agrees with this "belief". In a court of law it could not stand because it would require that OECTA take a position where any staff person can call a meeting in direct opposition to the by-laws and it would sanctioned. That would make the Board of Directors (the PE) subordinate to staff. This, legally, is impossible under OECTA's own rules.

Angelo wrote a response where he explained how a report and legal opinion was ruled out of order by the delegates of the AGM. The AGM sent a message. It was, "follow the rules to procure any report or the report does not exist." The basis for this lies in line of authority. You cannot proceed with an action if that action is in non-compliance with the direct orders of a higher authority. Here the direct orders are found in 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. Ignorance is not a valid legal argument. The PE cannot say that they broke the contract because they were not aware of their duties under 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51.

That being said, justice must always be fair, unbiased, follow due process, and respect ALL contractual agreements. I have now found 34 areas in this case where these legal requirements and others were not met. I have already stated many of them. OECTA's legal counsel has probably found more.

A staff person represented the complainants at the August hearing. If that hearing was audio taped it will also come out. Beware, words can be devastating when they are presented in a court of law. I hope everyone was very careful if that hearing was taped. Staff is especially vulnerable depending on what was said.

What does the letter calling the six participants to the February meeting say about their appointment when we already know, in writing, they were never appointed? Who signed/sent this notification letter? Who authorized the sending of notice to meet in February? What effect does this have on the arms length requirement? There are hundreds of questions like this as you move through the case.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

To Law Man.

This is Angelo's guest blog but it seems that he does not mind if you answer questions.

When the PE became aware that 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 were not complied with what legal responsibility fell on them to act?

Three members of the PE including the current president were witnesses on Richard Brock's defense who were not given the opportunity to testify at the August hearing. In court they have to tell the truth. What happens when the testify?

If it is found that appointments were made by a staff person in non-compliance to the by-laws for any meeting what consequences could that staff person face?

Is OECTA liable for insubordinate actions by a staff person?

If the Provincial Executive say that past practice is being followed and that Discipline Board was not appointed by motion for a long time, will this stand up in court? It is my understanding that past practice must be well known and in this case it was not. It is also my understanding that an illegal practice cannot be used to discipline and remove someone from office no matter what. Am I correct?

If the by-laws are a contract with the members, whose duty is it to make sure that contract is followed?

I hope the PE is reading your comments because it seems you have all of this figured out.

Angelo Ippolito said...

I am writing only to give a quick notice.

I am very busy locally, I will not be able to respond until Saturday.

Law Man has raised some very serious issues. They need to be addressed. However I can't address them.

Send them to the PE with your name attached. We are back to courage. There is no need to be afraid. The PE are there to hear and respond to members. Law Man MAY be right but it seems he is not a member.

Law Man, you have the right to freedom of speech but this is an internal issue until it goes to court. We hear you but the members are the only ones that can request a response from the PE and expect that they receive an answer.

Back to you on Saturday.

Angelo Ippolito

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

My responses follow your questions.

Q. When the PE became aware that 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51 were not complied with what legal responsibility fell on them to act?

A. Under 2.51 they are legally required to act in accordance with the Handbook. Once they found out, they would have had to take measures to make sure they were all followed, Since they were not everything that came afterwards, would have had to be declared invalid. Not doing this put them in non-compliance with 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51.

Q. Three members of the PE including the current president were witnesses on Richard Brock's defense who were not given the opportunity to testify at the August hearing. In court they have to tell the truth. What happens when the testify?

A. Since they were witnesses for the defense it can't be helpful to the OECTA case.

Q. If it is found that appointments were made by a staff person in non-compliance to the by-laws for any meeting what consequences could that staff person face?

A, As board of directors, the PE would need to determine this. Since their own authority and the authority of the AGM would be on the line, they would need to take this very seriously. It also would open up a personal law suit against such a staff member.

Q. Is OECTA liable for insubordinate actions by a staff person?

A. Yes because the PE are legally required to know the bylaws and follow them. Ignorance is ignorant and it works against the Association. A good lawyer would never put an argument of ignorance especially when there are nine people on the elected PE plus the General Secretary and the Deputy General Secretary who are all required to know the rules.

Q. If the Provincial Executive say that past practice is being followed and that Discipline Board was not appointed by motion for a long time, will this stand up in court? It is my understanding that past practice must be well known and in this case it was not. It is also my understanding that an illegal practice cannot be used to discipline and remove someone from office no matter what. Am I correct?

A. You are correct. Past practice has no legal weight in this case for the two reasons you mention. In addition not following the law for a time does not mean you can still decide not follow the law. You may speed in your car for many years and never get caught but when you do you can't say that you have been doing this for years and never had a problem so now it is OK. It just does not hold legal weight especially when not following the rules results in a such a serious verdict. A court of law will not give this any credence at all.

Q. If the by-laws are a contract with the members, whose duty is it to make sure that contract is followed?

A. It is the legal duty of the PE.

I hope this helps.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Angelo Wrote:

Law Man, you have the right to freedom of speech but this is an internal issue until it goes to court. We hear you but the members are the only ones that can request a response from the PE and expect that they receive an answer.

Response: Angelo you are right. I am trying to help but members have to take this on if they care about their own rules. I would suggest that letter be prepared by someone with all the points I have made and sent in with at least 10 members signing it. Maybe you, John Cafferky, or David Chiarelli can organize this. Such a letter would have a significant impact.

The questions I answered in my last post were to the point. The members are well aware of what is pertinent.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Law Man,

You may be right but there are those who believe that justice was served. I just want to make sure that everyone knows they have the right to raise their views with the PE no matter what their position is. Angelo has also made this clear.

For one point, I disagree with you about past practice. If there was a long standing practice where the PE and the members knew the bylaws were not being followed, then the non-appointment of the discipline board would be accepted in a court of law.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

For one point, I disagree with you about past practice. If there was a long standing practice where the PE and the members knew the bylaws were not being followed, then the non-appointment of the discipline board would be accepted in a court of law.

Response: You are 100% legally incorrect. First of all it was not well known by the members. I am not sure about the PE. But imagine the PE knowingly not following the bylaws. That would make the OECTA case even weaker than it already it is.

However those are not the most pertinent points.

First the bylaws are a contract with all the members. Therefore it was and is a contract with Richard Brock. In a normal contract it could only be changed by mutual consent. The GS would have to had informed Richard Brock that the bylaws were not being followed and Mr. Brock would have had to agree to this, if this was a normal contract but it isn't. See article 2.1. in this case ONLY the AGM can make changes to the contractual requirements found in the bylaws, So, legally everyone is bound by the clear and unambiguous words in 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. Past practice cannot be relied on as justification for breaking the law.

A secret past practice would be used against OECTA with great effect if it went to court. That would amount to breaking the law with knowledge and intent. The award to Richard Brock just increased dramatically and every Provincial Executive would probably lose their next election if this came out.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

i don't get it. Why have we even ended up here? How did this all start? Who decides what the interest of the Association is? Is Richard Brock a bad person? If Law Man is right, who can we trust?

Angelo can you help to understand?

David Chiarelli said...

Great discussion here! Thanks for the insights! Wow!

David Chiarelli said...

You can ask in our discussion forum here, of course. Also consider checking the plethora of blogs posted on the OECTA Brock Debacle going back to July 5 2012 in the Archive links posted directly below this blog column. Hope this helps!

Anonymous said...

The PE is required to know the scope of the corporation's mandate, as defined by its corporate documents, and that the corporation is required to restrict its activities to that mandate. Directors are not allowed to act in noncompliance with these documents.

The PE is required to know in what specific ways liability may arise for claims of injurious conduct. They are required to know that negligent mismanagement can result in legal actions arising out of non-compliance with bylaws.

Has a review been prepared, either internally or though seeking external legal advice, identifying regulatory and internal requirements that the corporation is required to meet?

Questions the PE should ask themselves.


Do the organization's current activities reflect its corporate objectives as set out in its incorporating documents and duly passed bylaws?

Does the corporation carry out its obligations under the corporate bylaws?

Does the board have a process for authorizing procedures entered into by the corporation?

Is the corporation fulfilling all of its statutory obligations, such as filing mandatory reports and ensuring that reports that are received have followed the obligatory authorization?

If the corporation is non profit, is it taking precautions to ensure the proper investment of funds and not putting the corporation at financial risk?

Is it complying with applicable laws regulating its activities?


When I am unable to attend a board meeting, do I read the minutes of the meeting and voice any concerns I may have?

Do I voice my opposition to matters that I disagree with and make sure that my objections are recorded in the minutes of the meeting?

Have I read and understood the corporation's constitution or letters patent and bylaws and follow the mandate?

Do I understand all of the corporation's legal obligations?

Do I understand the special legal liabilities that both I and the corporation face when bylaws are not followed?

Liability for lack of corporate authority
Directors acting outside the scope of their authority as defined by the letters patent, supplementary letters patent, bylaws, or other governing documents of the corporation are personally responsible for any decisions or actions they take. This liability may arise owing to lack of compliance with internal bylaws, constitutions, statutes, contracts, torts or the common law. Effectively, the directors are considered to have taken the decision(s) or action(s) as individuals rather than as a corporate body, so the 'corporate shield' does not apply. It is seen as a personal decision if a director does not comply with bylaws they are required to know and act in accordance with.

Law Man

David Chiarelli said...

These would be excellent questions for a member to send to PE for an answer asap as part of the Brock investigation going on!!!!

Anonymous said...

David wrote:

These would be excellent questions for a member to send to PE for an answer asap as part of the Brock investigation going on!!!!

Response: David, I sent my last post to the OECTA Provincial Executive and copied it to you. In the letter to the Directors (PE) I added a few more questions. They already have it.

This is what I sent to the PE.

From: Law Man
Date: Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Subject: As Directors, You Need To Ask Yourself
To: Provincial_Executive@oecta.on.ca
Cc: davechiarelli@gmail.com


Hello,

I am concerned that you do not understand the serious nature of you situation. I have posted many comments on the Angelo Ippolito Guest Blog on the David Chiarelli site.

This is one I have just sent in, but I thought I better send it to you directly. Do with it what you want. You may choose to ignore it.

The PE is required to know the scope of the corporation's mandate, as defined by its corporate documents, and that the corporation is required to restrict its activities to that mandate. Directors are not allowed to act in noncompliance with these documents.

The PE is required to know in what specific ways liability may arise for claims of injurious conduct. They are required to know that negligent mismanagement can result in legal actions arising out of non-compliance with bylaws.

Has a review been prepared, either internally or better though seeking external legal advice, identifying regulatory and internal requirements that the corporation is required to meet?

Questions the PE should ask themselves.


Do the organization's current activities reflect its corporate objectives as set out in its incorporating documents and duly passed bylaws?

Does the corporation carry out its obligations under the corporate bylaws?

Does the board have a process for authorizing procedures entered into by the corporation?

Is the corporation fulfilling all of its statutory obligations, such as filing mandatory reports and ensuring that reports that are received have followed the obligatory authorization?

If the corporation is non profit, is it taking precautions to ensure the proper investment of funds and not putting the corporation at financial risk?

Is it complying with applicable laws regulating its activities?


When I am unable to attend a board meeting, do I read the minutes of the meeting and voice any concerns I may have?

Do I voice my opposition to matters that I disagree with and make sure that my objections are recorded in the minutes of the meeting?

Have I read and understood the corporation's constitution or letters patent and bylaws and follow the mandate?

Do I understand all of the corporation's legal obligations?

Do I defend the bylaws and voice opposition when they are not complied with? Do the minutes show this?

Do I understand the special legal liabilities that both I and the corporation face when bylaws are not followed?

Liability for lack of corporate authority

Directors acting outside the scope of their authority as defined by the letters patent, supplementary letters patent, bylaws, or other governing documents of the corporation are personally responsible for any decisions or actions they take. This liability may arise owing to lack of compliance with internal bylaws, constitutions, statutes, contracts, torts or the common law. Effectively, the directors are considered to have taken the decision(s) or action(s) as individuals rather than as a corporate body, so the 'corporate shield' does not apply. It is seen as a personal decision if a director does not choose to comply with bylaws they are required to know and act in accordance with.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Law Man,

If the OECTA lawyers have figured out everything you have posted and informed the Provincial Executive we have a very serious problem.

The PE need to ask them why they have not done this and demand an answer.

As many have said many times on this site, we need courage. It starts with the PE. Courage to admit the truth is what they need and like Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

PE the truth is staring you right in the face. You have two choices.

You can confront and accept it, which takes courage and will result in a tough but right decision or you can turn away and continue a cover up. It is either yes or no to the truth.

What will it be, yes or no? In court it will be a yes so tread carefully.

Anonymous said...

I say:

Truth - Yes
Due Process - Yes
Rule of Law - Yes
Justice - Yes

Why does the PE say no to all of these? I can tell you why.

They are sacrificing all of us to protect one person. It is the person who called the six participants to the February non-existent Discipline Board meeting, who ever that is. This is not new. The previous president sacrificed all of us for personal gain. Talk about actions based on past practice.

PE it is time to awake from your IMPOSED slumber and face the glaring morning light. Beware of lies and intimidation. RISE up out your FORCED delusion and accept reality.

You have no choice if OECTA is to retain any credibility, trust, and unity at all. Right now, all three of these things are basically non-existent just like the discipline board.

Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

Listen to Churchill and we shall be saved.

Ann Hawkins, is it true that you were Kevin O'Dwyer's campaign chairperson for many years? Were you also on the personnel committee that hired Kevin O'Dwyer? Is it true that you are not Catholic and that you want remove the reference to Catholic teachers in our prayer and pledge?

Let's start getting everything out about everyone. Ann has consistently said she believed in clarity and transparency. Ann Hawkins, prove that you meant it.

Concerned in DP

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

If the OECTA lawyers have figured out everything you have posted and informed the Provincial Executive we have a very serious problem.

Response:

The PE have a very serious problem that will only be solved by protecting the AGM and by-laws they wrote, In other words, to protect themselves they must hold accountable those who acted without authority and reverse the Richard Brock decision. There is no escaping this. They know it, but they must be terrified because the truth will show that they were wrong and their own authority was disregarded by an inferior authority. Once they come to the inevitable truth then they would have to deal with insubordination. That is why this is taking so long,

In court, all will come out and then they would have to deal with it anyway but then they would also have to deal with a political revolution at the AGM.

It is much smarter from a legal point of view to fess up and deal with it now. A public court case will be devastating for the Board of Directors of the Association and senior management.

From the Canada Corporation Act part II
The powers of the board of directors to manage the corporation.

The by-laws must indicate that the board of directors has the power to manage the corporation.

(The PE is the Board of Directors. Note the word "must". The General Secretary does not and cannot have power over the Board. Law Man)

The by-laws may specifically exclude and retain certain powers for exercise by the membership at a general meeting.

( In OECTA it is specified that ONLY the AGM can change bylaws. The PE must ONLY follow the bylaws and they MUST do it all the time because of this specification.)

Something went, legally, very wrong in OECTA and the PE is afraid to confront it for understandable but non-defensible reasons. In court there will be no sympathy for what they did as well as no defense.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

"I never apologize Lisa, but that is just how I am."

Homer Simpson

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous said...
i don't get it. Why have we even ended up here? How did this all start? Who decides what the interest of the Association is? Is Richard Brock a bad person? If Law Man is right, who can we trust?

Angelo can you help to understand?

Response: We each have to trust ourselves to do the right thing. I have to do this and the PE have to do this. We will all be judged and it won't be after we die. it will be soon. The truth is now unstoppable and it is all coming out. I fear a court case because OECTA is a great organization and a court case will hurt us no matter who wins.

I have to say that Law Man is hard to argue against. There, I said it. I hope the PE is very carefully and meticulously going through every post Law Man has put up.

I see no one as a bad person.

To get an understanding of your other three questions, you need to read all the posts here and on the David Chiarelli sites on this topic.

I ask the PE, to show how us how and why Law Man, has it wrong if they have taken a different position. We need, at the very least, give the PE the courtesy to respond before passing judgement, But, it is certainly very troubling at this point.

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

At each of the last three or four AGM's, Angelo read and asked all the candidates running for the Provincial Executive if they understood and would follow 2,51, They all said they understood and would follow it and that there was no choice in the matter, Warren and Kevin said they would follow it but that they would have to make an interpretation if there was a conflict among by-laws. Law Man has shown all of us that even when they are put together, 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. are "quadra-clear" and no ambiguity exists. Law Man and Angelo have also made it clear that by-laws always supersede procedures and only the AGM can change them.

Angelo, did the members of the PE break their promise to AGM? You asked the question so will you hold them accountable to their word? Can we get a transcript of their answers to you over the last three AGM's and send it out to all members?

We can't trust people who are dishonest right to our faces and do not keep their word to their ultimate superior, the AGM.

AGM Delegate

Anonymous said...

There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny.
Frederick William Robertson

The idea of democracy has been stripped of it moral imperatives and come to denote hollowness and hypocrisy.
Paul Wellstone

Hypocrisy is the outside of cynicism.
Mason Cooley

Candor and accountability in a democracy is very important. Hypocrisy has no place.
Alan Dershowitz

Discretion is the polite word for hypocrisy.
Christine Keeler

It's to be a person who's able to shoot little arrows into sacred cows and knock politicians off their pedestals, to look out for hypocrisy, advocate for all sorts of things from social justice to peace.
Jonathan Shapiro

The Provincial Executive is afraid of us shining a light on the truth and bringing out their insubordination to the AGM as it would bring out their hypocrisy because they all claimed to be champions of truth, transparency, the Handbook, and integrity. Hypocrisy reigns,

AGM Delegate

Anonymous said...

I am unit president. It looks like this has turned into a dual Q and A for both Angelo and Law Man.

I have received a legal document that is to go to the school board. I have been told that a staff person will sign it.

Angelo and Law Man, does a staff person have the right to sign it if the local does not want to sign it?

Law Man said...

If you defame someone, one possible way to resolve the problem is to publish a retraction.

Directors who breach any of their duties to the corporation, may be liable if the corporation suffers a loss that can be directly attributed to their actions or omissions. To protect themselves from such liability, directors should always consider whether the decision(s) or action(s) being taken are in accordance with bylaws and in the best interests of the corporation. They must discharge their duties of skill and diligence, as well their duty of loyalty, including acting honestly and in good faith, not improperly delegating their responsibilities, and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Most of the legislation imposing liability on directors does not actually define who is a 'director.' Individuals who are acting in the capacity of directors - de facto directors - but who may not have actually been elected as such may nonetheless be exposed to directors' liability. This could include those serving as de facto directors, ex-officio directors, those dubbed 'honorary' directors and those sitting on an executive committee or otherwise acting as part of a group managing the corporation's affairs, no matter what it is called. If these individuals act like directors, they can attract the liability of directors.

When there is an obligation to constitute authority, this requirement must be met before any authority can be assumed or transferred. In OECTA a Discipline Board cannot have even the authority to meet without first receiving the proper enabling motion from the Board of Directors. Without such duly procured authority, no group would have any legal standing to do anything within the association. Everything that occurred in the absence of authorized recognition of authority with the proper motions required by by-laws, would be inadmissible in any subsequent function of the association and out of order. They would not be admitted for consideration in a court of law because any reports or recommendations from the February meeting were reached without the Board of Directors releasing the required authority to the participants. A court would see this as non-compliance with a written contract with the accused.

Law Man

David Chiarelli said...

Hi All!

This is hard to explain because it is BS as is OECTA Provincial for the past year or more but take note: At least a few members of PE will have read your comments here. At least a few members have directed these questions to them, even last year, and not gotten a response. However, if you don't do so directly as a member, they are under no obligation too, or can even deny receipt or an obligation to respond directly to you.

It is necessary, with the 3rd party investigation of the Brock case underway that everybody do so now again. I know it's BS when the admin at school says they can't or didn't do anything because you didn't give it in writing to them for the umpteenth time, and quite frankly just a run around. However we do have a window here now while all legal eyes + those at COP are turned on the PE + secretariat to do so that is critical, and an serve the cause well if this investigation is just a snowjob.

Please, there are literally dozens and dozens of good questions that can be directed to them, and the lawyers on this post and a few others over he past month or so. Choose three, as a member and submit, telling PE you require a response in writing.

I know you are very busy at school. I know the BS is absolutely maddening. I know these questions have to be sent directly by the active membership too, asking for a response, which you are supposed to receive. Do so no, or we risk all of these excellent questions, discussions and debates being just so much hot air.

I am working with some members to develop a set of user friendly instructions and even a generic form for you to possibly use. It will be posted asap.

Time is of the essence. The investigation should be completed by provincial by next month! Please choose 3 good questions to ask now, and encourage as many of you colleagues to do likewise. Make them up yourself or pick some from the comments here on my blog to get started now, and I will provide the instructions and form.

Unfortunately this is absolutely necessary tho the BS absolutely makes one grit our teeth.

It's all up to you as members to make it work!

Many of us have taken a stand and not been afraid to be bullied! Isn't that what our faith teaches us to do? What would we tell our students to do under similar circumstances?

Let's walk the walk now!

In solidarity!

David C

Law Man said...

Anonymous wrote: Angelo and Law Man, does a staff person have the right to sign it if the local does not want to sign it?

Response: Yes, but only under very specific requirements. A staff person has no authority to do anything, including the signing of a local agreement under your own rules and the law of the land unless it is granted to them by the Board of Directors or the AGM.

Under your own rules, the Board of Directors or the AGM can grant signing authority of a local agreement to the staff person. In OECTA there are no such granting of authority in current existence. The Board of Directors have the right to take over a local by motion. They would have to do this before they or a staff person can sign anything in opposition of a local bargaining unit's position.

There also seems to be a very serious misconception. I will address it here. The Association is legally the bargaining agent. Only members of the association can exercise this authority to agency. Between AGM's this agency is in the purvey of the PE but it must be wielded in compliance with 2.51. The handbook has a detailed list of requirements on how to do this. They must be followed.

However, the AGM is a higher authority than the Board of Directors. When the AGM is in session they are the Bargaining Agent. The AGM can pass an Action Directive resolution by a simple majority and direct the PE to any action it wants in relation to the implementation of the Bargaining Agent designation. The rules as to notice or as to how it can be brought under new business must be followed. I would suggest that a number of Action Directives in regards to collective bargaining be written and sent in before November 29, 2013 to the provincial office.

The AGM is the bargaining agent and it only delegates this authority to the Board of Directors when it is not in session. Many persons seem not to have made this clear to them.

Staff are not the bargaining agent ( and not even members of the bargaining unit) and under your own rules they can't be designated as the bargaining agent. They are workers hired to assist the bargaining agent in completing its work. They have a vital role but authority to act without approval of the appropriate political authorities is not part of their role and cannot be claimed as one of their rights.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Lawman, You the MAN! I think I'm in love!

Anonymous said...

This page is getting really long and hard to read. David you need to create an "Ask Angelo II" page.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous said...
Lawman, You the MAN! I think I'm in love!

Anonymous said...
This page is getting really long and hard to read. David you need to create an "Ask Angelo II" page.

Response: Law Man seems to have taken over my blog and has raised a lot of issues. Now he is attracting love. Love is good. Let's have more love.

I would not support a second page because a lot of what is said here relates to previous posts. Also, for those who have fallen in love with Law Man, all his posts would not be on the second site.

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

I love you too, Mr Law Man. Are you a corporate lawyer?

If it wasn't for Angelo none of this would ever have come out. Angelo, you should be very proud of yourself for standing up, clarifying our rules, and defending all OECTA members including the Provincial Executive, your fellow presidents, the AGM and the Handbook. I love you too.

Courage is growing because the knowledge that was being withheld from us is now here for everyone to read.

Concerned in DP

Angelo Ippolito said...

David Chiarelli wrote: Many of us have taken a stand and not been afraid to be bullied! Isn't that what our faith teaches us to do? What would we tell our students to do under similar circumstances?

Response: This is true but not only about this case, no matter your position. I have to repeat my words that I have defended for so many years.

Silence is the enemy of both peace and justice.

No matter what we believe we must not let fear govern our actions. Fear is the ammunition of those that would silence the truth seekers. Fear is what they rely on because truth, justice, and rule of law cannot support them. This is true no matter about how you feel about this case.

We need to all have the courage to speak our minds and challenge those with power. Without this, it would lead to unconditional obedience and unconditional obedience will lead to disaster.

Blind obedience and acquiescence to any human power, individually or collectively, is a dogma of submission without thought and that can only lead to absolute power which corrupts absolutely. Always question authority no matter what position you may take.

It takes courage but we have an individual call to duty to defend the truth and pursue justice. Peace can only be reached after justice is realized.

I'm getting a little philosophical here. I would welcome a discussion on what I just wrote.

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

Interesting reading. Question out to anyone who can answer it: What is the proper procedure for units to follow to draft unit bylaws and unit AGM Unit Resolutions? At what stage of the process should unit members be asked for their input into drafting bylaws/resolutions?

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous wrote:
What is the proper procedure for units to follow to draft unit bylaws and unit AGM Unit Resolutions? At what stage of the process should unit members be asked for their input into drafting bylaws/resolutions?

Response: The time is now. All unit presidents have the forms that need to be submitted, The deadline for reception at the provincial office is November 28. They must be passed by a Unit General Meeting or the Unit Executive. You need to contact your unit president if you have an idea.

Yours,

Angelo Ippolito

Angelo Ippolito said...

Sorry, in my last post I was talking about AGM resolutions.

Anonymous said...
Interesting reading. Question out to anyone who can answer it: What is the proper procedure for units to follow to draft unit bylaws and unit AGM Unit Resolutions? At what stage of the process should unit members be asked for their input into drafting bylaws/resolutions?

Response: Unit General meeting resolutions can be brought up at any unit general meeting except when they are time specific.

Budget resolutions usually have to be done at the fall UGM. Resolutions to change unit bylaws usually have to be done at the spring UGM. You need to ask your unit president for the current unit bylaws and procedures. They will explain the process. There is usually a timeline for the reception of resolutions to change unit bylaws.

As long as the resolutions are in order and they are passed at UGM they become binding on the Unit Executive.

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Angelo Ippolito said...

Anonymous wrote:

At each of the last three or four AGM's, Angelo read and asked all the candidates running for the Provincial Executive if they understood and would follow 2,51, They all said they understood and would follow it and that there was no choice in the matter, Warren and Kevin said they would follow it but that they would have to make an interpretation if there was a conflict among by-laws. Law Man has shown all of us that even when they are put together, 1.10, 2.51.15, 2.193, and 2.51. are "quadra-clear" and no ambiguity exists. Law Man and Angelo have also made it clear that by-laws always supersede procedures and only the AGM can change them.

Angelo, did the members of the PE break their promise to AGM? You asked the question so will you hold them accountable to their word? Can we get a transcript of their answers to you over the last three AGM's and send it out to all members?

Response: You are correct that I asked the question and how it was answered. A transcript of their answers along with a recording is available at the Provincial Office. I will ask the question again this year with an added nuance.

As far as breaking their promise, each executive and each delegate must make up their own mind and respond appropriately.

Yours,
Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Law Man said...

I wrote:

Directors acting outside the scope of their authority as defined by the letters patent, supplementary letters patent, bylaws, or other governing documents of the corporation are personally responsible for any decisions or actions they take. This liability may arise owing to lack of compliance with internal bylaws, constitutions, statutes, contracts, torts or the common law. Effectively, the directors are considered to have taken the decision(s) or action(s) as individuals rather than as a corporate body, so the 'corporate shield' does not apply. It is seen as a personal decision if a director does not choose to comply with bylaws they are required to know and act in accordance with.

Added comment: In OECTA this would include all the members of the voting and non-voting members of the provincial executive. OECTA has high caliber lawyers. This is well known in legal circles and OECTA legal counsel would have pointed this out to them.

Finally, cover ups are dealt with even more severely than the original non-compliance with the contract when that occurs.

Go Argos,

Law Man

Anonymous said...

To change bylaws etc. you need to submit them to your unit general meeting. All resolutions must be into provincial office by November 28th.

signed The Insider

Law Man said...

Anonymous wrote:

I love you too, Mr Law Man. Are you a corporate lawyer?

Response:

I will leave that to speculation which is inadmissible in court.

Thanks for the love. Keep it coming.

Angelo wrote:

It takes courage but we have an individual call to duty to defend the truth and pursue justice. Peace can only be reached after justice is realized.

I'm getting a little philosophical here. I would welcome a discussion on what I just wrote.

Response: I agree. If we all did this the world would be a much better place. OECTA has a long history of good work in social justice. OECTA just needs to work on due justice and rule of law.

I love what Angelo stands for. The Board of Directors should be consulting with Angelo on a regular basis.

Angelo, don't worry. They can't touch you. What are they going to do, claim that seeking the truth, justice, following their own rules, due process, and rule of law is not in the best interest of the Association. I don't think so. Keep it up. OECTA needs you right now.

Go Argos,

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Problem with OECTA?
The predisposition to respect the chain of command and carry out the orders of superiors or to show “solidarity” in our union may be at the heart of current problems. Many of our elected officials have been sacrificing their mandate to promote the interests and rights of the members, to a blind obedience to provincial executive.
This predisposition may lead them not to question things that should be questioned. The abuse of power is a terrible thing. Failure to resist corrupting pressure is equally contemptible.
Members need to hold our leaders accountable for their silence, or acquiescence to evil, and elect and re-elect them on the basis of their actions and performance in accordance with their mandate. Members have to judge our leaders on the basis of their actions on our behalf- with respect to our salaries and benefits- rather than on whether they look good and can make pretty, but inane speeches.
It is very educational to go into media reports in the last couple of years and see precisely who has been speaking out on behalf of the rights and interests of OECTA members amongst our elected leaders! These true leaders are scarce indeed!

Anonymous said...

Hey Angelo. DOWN WITH THE LIBERALS!! NDP NDP NDP.

Angelo Ippolito said...

Wow!!!

Churchill said, "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

I have no fear of the end. We should all fear blind obedience. Blind obedience only serves the masters and not the people.

Sometimes we need to speak an uncomfortable truth. However, speak it we must, Not to do so will only let deceptions carry on unchallenged and justice to be denied. In this scenario peace is unattainable and trust can only be faked.

The PE have an understandable loyalty, They have loyalty to the members, to the AGM, and to the Handbook. There is no other understandable loyalty. Misplaced loyalty that does not serve these three, is dangerous and unreasonable. It is also unacceptable.

Go Ti-Cats,

Angelo Ippolito
angelo4you@gmail.com

Law Man said...

Angelo wrote:

The PE have an understandable loyalty, They have loyalty to the members, to the AGM, and to the Handbook. There is no other understandable loyalty. Misplaced loyalty that does not serve these three, is dangerous and unreasonable. It is also unacceptable.

I wrote:

They must discharge their duties of skill and diligence, as well their duty of loyalty, including acting honestly and in good faith, not improperly delegating their responsibilities, and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Response: You have it Angelo. Loyalty when placed approriately and for the right reasons can be a good thing. This type of loyalty would actually encourage and direct one to due process, rule of law, just authority, and truth because the loyalty is dependent on achieving these ideals. When the loyalty is misplaced, it can work against these things and as you have correctly stated, this would be dangerous, unacceptable, and unreasonable.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

Many of our elected officials have been sacrificing their mandate to promote the interests and rights of the members, to a blind obedience to provincial executive.

My response: The Provincial Executive have been sacrificing their duty and mandate to follow the rules of the AGM and to promote the interests and rights of the members, to a blind obedience to insubordinate staff. This is a major part of the OECTA problem.

Concerned in DP

David Chiarelli said...

Hi All!

OECTA members need to start walking the walk now as the Brock investigation is all ready well under way. Unless your questions and concerns are directly submitted to the Provincial PE in a timely manner and a formal response requested, they are under no obligation to acknowledge or consider your concerns!

The guest blog includes a template to help get everyone started. Please see it. It was posted tonight. Kindly note the problems. I am respectfully posting it "as is" because I don't think many of you understand my instructions for submitting a blog in the word file form I request, and why the instructions for doing so correctly are absolutely necessary!

Solidarity!/
Cheers!

David C

PS You can Comment below the new blog.

Anonymous said...

David,

When will the template on http://tsu3rdvp.blogspot.ca/2013_11_01_archive.html
be complete. Right now there is a lot of white on white and black on black and it is unreadable.
AGM Delegate

Anonymous said...

Law man asked the PE to ask themselves a number of questions. Two were, Do I defend the bylaws and voice opposition when they are not complied with? Do the minutes show this?

David wrote: OECTA members need to start walking the walk now as the Brock investigation is all ready well under way. Unless your questions and concerns are directly submitted to the Provincial PE in a timely manner and a formal response requested, they are under no obligation to acknowledge or consider your concerns!

My two cents: A member has already sent the letter to the PE and copied it to all the Unit Presidents and the OTBU Presidents. Since it is from a member, the PE has a duty and responsibility to respond. If they don't, we will know that the members are the least of their concerns.

If they don't respond we unelect all of them, who do not support us and our rules, at the next AGM. We also watch with deepening concern as OECTA gets destroyed in court and wastes your money and mine.

Signed,

A Unit President Who Has Successfully Been Forced to be AFRAID to put her Name on this Blog.

PS. In the past, I have sent letters of a controversial nature directly to the PE with my name.

David Chiarelli said...

Good stuff! Thanks for this! I am wondering though if it is still not a good idea for our concerned members to all send in a request for the answers so that:

a] they each are entitled to a direct answer themselves to see as soon as it is available and can respond personally in kind.

b] it will be harder for OECTA to not acknowledge or respond

c] they will understand and cannot argue these concerns are not from just a few members, or some sort of "plot".

My understanding is letters have been written before which we have never heard about nor read the response, if any, that was provided. Gotta love that personal touch too! You write, you should get an answer and are not dependent on anyone else to see the answer, or know directly if there isn't any. You are a part of the dialogue in these essential issues about your union!

Solidarity/
Cheers!

David C

Law Man said...

James Ryan has emailed me and asked me for my name or to call him.

It has to be a member not me. You now have everything you need. You just need to do it. Angelo, Kent, John. David, Kate, and and a few others can't be expected to defend you and OECTA all on their own.

Send the letter to the PE and request a response. A letter like this from even one member would prove that all the information was before the PE and then that letter can be used in court if they don't respond. Emails are forever. Not responding would strengthen a case showing a cover up which is very strong already. Members have rights. Use those rights.

The PE can end this before a court case very easily.

Law Man

Law Man said...

A judicial review allows for the court to consider the entire decision-making process, including the process, the findings of fact and of law. The power of judicial review is found either in the enabling statute or by virtue of the common law.[3] The common law powers are derived from the four original writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus.
Appeals are typically reviews for errors of law.
These powers are also frequently limited by privative clauses or finality clauses within the enabling statute. A privative clause will declare the ADMs decision is "final and conclusive" and/or that the ADM has "exclusive jurisdiction" over the matter, effectively removing any power of review. As established in Crevier v. Quebec (1981), the Constitution requires that the courts be able to supervise errors of ADMs and so the legislature or private clause CANNOT completely oust them from that power, nor can an ADM completely replace a Superior Court.
Substantive review

The decision and the evidence are reviewed based on the appropriate standard of review for the circumstances.
Determining the standard of review is a particularly contextual process and can vary based on the type of ADM or even the specific matter at issue. The modern method to determine the standard of review used to be known as the "pragmatic and functional approach" and is now known simply as the "standard of review analysis".[4][5] Its purpose is to determine the amount of review that the legislature intended.[6][7]
The determination is made based on four contextual factors:
the presence or absence of a privative clause or statutory right of appeal;
the expertise of the tribunal relative to that of the reviewing court on the issue in question;
the purposes of the legislation and the provision in particular; and
the nature of the question - law, fact or mixed law and fact
None of the factors are determinative and will vary in significance based on the circumstances. Where deference was intended the courts will review the ADM on the basis of reasonableness. Where little or no deference is intended the ADM will be reviewed on a standard of correctness.
Standards of review
There are two standards of review available to courts, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick: reasonableness and correctness. A third standard of review, patent unreasonableness, was abolished in Dunsmuir.
Reasonableness
Reasonableness is the deferential standard that a court can give to an ADM. Where the decision is a matter of law, a mix of fact and law or a discretionary decision it is said that the decision is unreasonable where the decision is "not supported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination".[8] In other words, it is unreasonable where "there is no line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived."[9]
Correctness
Correctness is the LEAST deference that court can give an ADM. The court will give no deference at all and will judge the decision on the basis of whether it is correct in law. A court may substitute its own opinion for that of the ADM. Not following a clear contractual agreement is incorrect in law.
Certain matters have been held by the court to always warrant a correctness standard: questions of constitutional law and division of powers,[10][11] a "TRUE DETERMINATION OF AUTHORITY" (in determining whether an administrative decision-maker has properly exercised its authority granted under a statute),[12] questions of general law that are both of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise,[13] and questions regarding jurisdictional lines between two or more competing specialized tribunals.[14].

One more to come,

So OECTA will lose. This is in addition to everything else I have written, This is straight from wikipedia.

Law Man

Law Man said...

”When a public or private authority had promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty."[18] In this way the courts have found procedural fairness through a promise by an ADM. .
The test is:[19][20]
An authority makes a promise, (to follow by-laws in OECTA)
That promise must be followed,
In respect to an interested person, and
They relied and acted upon that promise/ In OECTA they did not.
According to C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour),[21] if the promise is clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation as to a procedure then it creates a legitimate expectation. In OECTA there is a clear promise on how a discipline board receives authority.
Duty of fairness
The common law imposes a minimum duty of fairness in certain administrative proceedings.[22] The duty can only be invoked where the circumstances satisfy a threshold based on three factors set out by the Supreme Court in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19.[23][24]
First, the nature of the decision must be sufficiently administrative or quasi-judicial. Furthermore, the decisions must be final in nature, not preliminary or interlocutory.[26]
Second, the relationship between the (public) body and the individual must be based on an exercise of power in pursuant to a statute (or prerogative power). (In OECTA no power/authority has ever been granted to the discipline board)
Third, the decision must affect the claimant's rights, privileges or interests.[27]
Where the circumstances satisfy the threshold test to invoke a duty of fairness a claimant will be entitled to certain participatory rights including pre-hearing rights, such as rights related notice, DISCOSURE, DISCOVERY, AND DELAY., as well as hearing rights, such as rights related to the form of hearing, counsel, examinations, and reasons for judgment. THESE WERE DENIED IN OECTA.

One more to come.

Law Man

Law Man said...

Content of Duty of Fairness: Baker Test
Baker v. Canada clarified administrative law in Canada in relation to both substantive matters (discretionary decision making) and procedural matters (procedural fairness). In OECTA the discipline board has no discretionary power to submit a report or a recommendation without the by-laws being invoked first.
The content of the duty of fairness depends on the type of right and the circumstances of the case. There are five factors that affect the content of this duty:[28]
The nature of the decision. It asks whether the decision is more for the purpose of resolving dispute, protecting individual rights or some other judicial purpose rather than a decision that balances many interests and primarily considers policy.
The importance of the interest at stake in the decision relative to other interests.
The Statutory (bylaws) scheme under which the decision is made. This primarily focuses on whether the decision is final and conclusive or if whether it is preliminary or if there is a right of appeal.(There is no right to appeal in OECTA which is illegal but that would not matter because the authorizing bylaws were not satisfied)
The legitimate expectations of the parties based on whether there were any representations by word or conduct that lead the parties to believe there was some type of procedural protection.
The procedural choices available to the ADM. The ADM must be accorded some deference to its practices and policies necessary to accomplish its mandate.
With respect to discretion, historically, the standard of review for discretionary decisions applied by the courts was that of correctness. However, this changed in Baker where the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the awkward line between questions of law and discretion. The court recognized that the 'pragmatic and functional' approach, as outlined in Pushpanathan, should be applied when looking at issues of discretion. In addition, courts are able to apply a standard of reasonableness to discretionary decision making. ( in OECTA there is no discretion not to follow the by-laws.)
Bias and Independence
Administrative tribunals must be free from an APPEARANCE of bias - that is, a reasonable person must conclude that an administrative decision-maker is sufficiently free of factors that could interfere with his or her ability to make impartial judgments (commonly known as the "reasonable apprehension of bias" test)[29] This is derived from the natural justice principle of nemo judex in sua causa, or the right to be judged impartially.
Independence is one important indicator of whether there is an appearance of bias in an administrative body. Although administrative independence is not required to be as strict as judicial independence, there are still certain minimum requirements such as security of tenure and independent administrative control.[30] However, administrative independence is not guaranteed under the constitution, and can be ousted by statutory language.[31]
Once a court has determined that there has been a REASONABLE apprehension of bias, the decision in question must be void ab initio, as there is no remedy for the damage created by the apprehension of bias.[32]

OECTA will lose in court.

Law Man

Anonymous said...

PE, did you read the letter you received from a member today? When can she expect the required response?

We need it in writing. Your duty calls for nothing else.

AGM Delegate

Law Man said...

Ab Initio
[Latin, From the beginning; from the first act; from the inception.] An agreement is said to be "void ab initio" if it has at no time had any legal validity.

The illegality of the conduct or the revelation of the real facts makes the entire situation illegal ab initio (from the beginning), not just from the time the wrongful behavior occurs.

Please refer to my posts concerning the report and recommendations from the February meeting of a non-existent board.

What OECTA did was all illegal from the start and became increasingly illegal as it went on.

Law Man

Law Man said...

Nemo iudex in causa sua (or nemo iudex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause. It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any APPEARANCE of a possible bias, even IF there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be SEEN to be done".[1]

The legal effect of a breach of natural justice is normally to stop the proceedings and render any judgment invalid.

Note the word, "seen".

Law Man

Anonymous said...

Talking about fairness, Law Man wrote:

First, the nature of the decision must be sufficiently administrative or quasi-judicial. Furthermore, the decisions must be final in nature, not preliminary or interlocutory.[26]
Second, the relationship between the (public) body and the individual must be based on an exercise of power in pursuant to a statute (or prerogative power). (In OECTA no power/authority has ever been granted to the discipline board)
Third, the decision must affect the claimant's rights, privileges or interests.[27

So:
1st test - Passed - The decision was final.
2nd test - Passed - The discipline had no authority or power granted to them pursuant to OECTA's own rules.
3rd test - Passed - Richard's rights, privileges, and interests were affected.

The duty and right to fairness has been satisfied and therefore Richard had a right to disclosure, discovery, and delay. All were denied to him.

A member wrote a ten page letter today giving notice to the PE of many, many legal problems. What I write here and what is in Law Man's last three posts are not included in that ten page letter.

It gets worse by the day for OECTA. We have to ask ourselves are our leaders under a self imposed rejection of the truth or is this being forced on them

PE, do your job, read everything on this blog and in all the letters you have been sent and stand up for the members and the AGM by doing the right thing "in accordance" with the Handbook and the law.

With deepest sincerity,

OECTA Activist

David Chiarelli said...

You can find the template for your letter to send to OECTA PE about the legal concerns being discussed here, on todays blog,
which also includes President Ryan's letter to the Law Man.

Members: Email or snail mail the letter as well as those who so far have, asking for a response too. You can cut, paste and adapt the one from the blog to keep the process simple, even add more of or just include your own questions too.

Provincial is required to respond to you, and you can reply in kind. Please take a stand and help out. We can't just leave this all up to each other.

The more letters the better. What if they don't respond? Then we have plenty of evidence this is BS and they are in neglect of duty.

What if anyone gets bullied? Let us know here. If there is any bullying going on anywhere, at school or here, you know as a teacher that you can't ignore it or be cow towed. Bullying needs to be exposed and there is strength in numbers. One can't hide or just hope it will just go away. One can't lay low while it happens to others, because if so, they will also come after you someday, and then what?

OECTA has had a strong proud tradition of standing up and speaking out for what is right and just in years past. Let's not surrender that proud history now while we are under attack from the provincial government + other forces even within our own union, anyone who does not practice the democratic and Catholic principles + values upon which we are founded.

Actions speak louder than words. As Catholic teachers we can make a difference!!!!

Please get involved. The Brock investigation is under way. OECTA PE needs to receive these letters now!

Cheers/
Solidarity/
God bless!

David C

Anonymous said...

Angelo,

I understand that you are not comfortable with naming the third party investigator. That's understandable. Can you comment generally on the choice? ie. are you confident the party selected will produce an unbiased and complete report for the PE? Will the COP be informed/apprised of the findings of the investigators?

David Chiarelli said...

The secrecy really sucks. Who's paying the lawyer fees and who are they really working for? The membership? Then why is info being withheld? I should think the name of the lawyer + firm should be readily available upon request if this is an open and above board investigation. Also, weren't there 2 reports promised: a short term one and the final results of the investigation next month? How come none of the membership knows about this or has seen anything yet, including the PE minutes, also from COP? How long can it possibly take to release these for the members to see? Are the members too stupid to understand or is the info too delicate and if so for whom? Does the delay benefit anybody? Who? I suppose at the grassroots level most members know or understand little about what's going on still. What horse shit!

Anonymous said...

How do unit members apply for unit release officer positions that are paid positions? How does a unit member apply to be the unit speaker?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
How do unit members apply for unit release officer positions that are paid positions? How does a unit member apply to be the unit speaker?

Response: You would contact your unit president and apply through the unit executive or a constituted hiring committee. Small units do not have extra office release positions for members.

OECTA Insider

Anonymous said...

Please see: http://tsu3rdvp.blogspot.ca/2013/11/ask-angelo-oecta-follow-up-project.html#comment-form where this discussion continues/

Concerned in DP

Angelo Ippolito said...

From now on please add your comments or ask your questions on:

http://tsu3rdvp.blogspot.ca/2013/11/ask-angelo-oecta-follow-up-project.html#comment-form

Angelo

Post a Comment

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!

Communist Girls ARE More Fun!
See below ...

Youtube Bar: Afrika Bambaataa!

Loading...

Communist Girls Are More Fun #1

Communist Girls Are More Fun #1

Communist Grrrls are More Fun #2

Communist Grrrls are More Fun #2

Communist Grrrls Are More Fun #3

Communist Grrrls Are More Fun #3

Communist Girls Are More Fun #4

Communist Girls Are More Fun #4

Art at the Paris Louvre: What does it mean?!?

Art at the Paris Louvre: What does it mean?!?
A careful analytical study!

Help! I Have No Arms!

Help! I Have No Arms!
Please scratch my back.

I can't find my underwear!.

I can't find my underwear!.
Have you seen them!

Weee! I can fly!

Weee! I can fly!
Look! I can crawl thru walls!

I have a headache!

I have a headache!
And a broken nose.

I have a square hole in my bum!

I have a square hole in my bum!

Here try this, it's very good!

Here try this, it's very good!
No. You have a bird face.

I have an ugly baby!

I have an ugly baby!
No I'm not!

Let's save all our money + buy pants!

Let's save all our money + buy pants!
OK but I need a new hand too!

Oh no! I got something in my eye!

Oh no! I got something in my eye!

You don't look well.

You don't look well.
No. My head hurts +I have a sore chest.

Would you like a bun?

Would you like a bun?

Chichen-Itza: Lost Maya City of Ruins!

Chichen-Itza: Lost Maya City of Ruins!
The Temple of Kukulkan!

Gotta love it!

Gotta love it!
Truly amazing!

Under Reconstruction!

Under Reconstruction!

Temples + Snakes!

Temples + Snakes!

The Snake!

The Snake!
It runs the length of the ball field!